Ask Me Anything with Left Coast

[Left Coast]

Why didn't you just say this in the first place?

Brevity is the soul of wit?

The reason I get so persnickety about this is because claiming that, "art is whatever I like" (or think is pretty), or that, "art is whatever I say it is" cheapens and demeans the artistic endeavor, horrendously. To the point, really, of presuming it to be meaningless titillation. And as an artist who knows how much thought and effort real artists put into making real art, I find that both dishonest and offensive.

Agreed, I find that very dismissive of artists' skill and effort. Thanks for being an artist!

 

[dybmh]

Yes, in the way that I know what art is, and I engage in that activity.

Of course you do,

The question was for @Left Coast...

 

[PureX]

Anyway, what's "God" to you? (Left Coast)

 

[Left Coast]

A follow-up to the dialogue with @PureX:

Do you consider yourself artistic? If so, in what ways?

Thank you,

In certain ways, mostly musically. I played piano for many years and even taught for a period of time. I also enjoyed acting in school and church plays as a child/teen, would enjoy getting back into that if I had the opportunity. My drawing/painting/sculpting skills are roughly that of a 3rd grader.

 

[Left Coast]

Anyway, what's "God" to you? (Left Coast)

God has many definitions, depending on who's speaking, and I don't currently subscribe to any of them. If I'm in a conversation with a theist, I'm generally comfortable adopting their use of the term for the sake of facilitating conversation.

 

[PureX]

God has many definitions, depending on who's speaking, and I don't currently subscribe to any of them. If I'm in a conversation with a theist, I'm generally comfortable adopting their use of the term for the sake of facilitating conversation.

But that's other people's ideas and definitions of God. What is God, to you?

 

[Left Coast]

But that's other people's ideas and definitions of God. What is God, to you?

I'm not sure how to answer the question other than how did. God is something/someone that people believe in, which has many diverse definitions. God can be any of those definitions "to me," if I'm in a conversation with someone who uses the term that way.

If that doesn't help, perhaps try asking a different way?

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure how to answer the question other than how did. God is something/someone that people believe in, which has many diverse definitions. God can be any of those definitions "to me," if I'm in a conversation with someone who uses the term that way.

If that doesn't help, perhaps try asking a different way?

If I were to see other people talking about an experience they were having that they found very important to them, and I was not able to experience it, too, I would want to share in that experience, somehow. Because I would want to know if it would be of similar significant to me, and why.

So when people told me, as a kid, about "God" in such a way as to imply that they were experiencing something significant, I wanted to experience it, too. Or at least understand it better, or well enough to know why I wasn't experiencing it. Which then kicked off my own quest for this experience, and/or at least an understanding of it, for myself.

And that's what I'm asking you about: your own assessment of the phenomena that we've all heard about, and that is apparently very significant to a lot of our fellow humans.

 

[Left Coast]

If I were to see other people talking about an experience they were having that they found very important to them, and I was not able to experience it, too, I would want to share in that experience, somehow. Because I would want to know if it would be of similar significant to me, and why.

So when people told me, as a kid, about "God" in such a way as to imply that they were experiencing something significant, I wanted to experience it, too. Or at least understand it better, or well enough to know why I wasn't experiencing it. Which then kicked off my own quest for this experience, and/or at least an understanding of it, for myself.

And that's what I'm asking you about: your own assessment of the phenomena that we've all heard about, and that is apparently very significant to a lot of our fellow humans.

That's the thing, though, it's not just one phenomenon people describe. In some cases, I think the phenomenon is a hallucination. In others, a case of mistaken identity. In still others, it's a need to give themselves an explanation for things they don't understand or can't otherwise explain, or a sense of stability and grounding in a world that often seems so chaotic and confusing, an overriding reason or purpose behind the madness that helps them stave off existential dread.

So that's my assessment. Does that help?

 

[PureX]

That's the thing, though, it's not just one phenomenon people describe. In some cases, I think the phenomenon is a hallucination. In others, a case of mistaken identity. In still others, it's a need to give themselves an explanation for things they don't understand or can't otherwise explain, or a sense of stability and grounding in a world that often seems so chaotic and confusing, an overriding reason or purpose behind the madness that helps them stave off existential dread.

So that's my assessment. Does that help?

And the fact that so many people can find so many different solutions for themselves in the same general 'source' doesn't impress you? Nor do you share in any of their needs?

 

[PureX]

New question: to what degree do you believe that your idea of what reality is, is accurate? And on what do you base that presumption?

 

[Left Coast]

And the fact that so many people can find so many different solutions for themselves in the same general 'source' doesn't impress you? Nor do you share in any of their needs?

I'm not convinced they're all drawing from the same 'source.' I do share some of the desires I mentioned, but I don't appeal to a deity to fulfill them anymore. In some cases, I've simply learned to accept the fact that as much as I may want something, like an explanation for some phenomenon, a part of growing and maturing is learning that we don't always get what we want. Sometimes we have to admit that we just don't know the answers to some questions, no matter how burning they may be. I think many theists are deeply uncomfortable with that.

 

[PureX]

I'm not convinced they're all drawing from the same 'source.'

Well, the same general source ideal. Interesting that this mystery affords we humans so much room to invent and embody our own solutions, don't you think? I mean, the ideals are man-made, but the mystery into which we inject these ideals is as real as we are. And through it, we find the solutions that we seek.

I find this a fascinating phenomenon. But then I don't get all bent out of shape over the fact that god-ideals are man-made. Since, all ideals are man-made made, and man is as legitimate a manifestation of "physics" as any other aspect of physical existence.

I do share some of the desires I mentioned, but I don't appeal to a deity to fulfill them anymore. In some cases, I've simply learned to accept the fact that as much as I may want something, like an explanation for some phenomenon, a part of growing and maturing is learning that we don't always get what we want. Sometimes we have to admit that we just don't know the answers to some questions, no matter how burning they may be. I think many theists are deeply uncomfortable with that.

I think you are short-changing yourself regarding the possibilities open to you because of those answers that you can't have. And I suspect that it's the result of an irrational bias against "make-believe".

I'll give you an example.

A husband and wife can spend their whole adult lives together, believing that they love each other. And yet in all that time, neither one of them is ever going to be able to know how the other feels or think about them. They "make believe" that the their partner loves them, and so long as that belief remains functional, they remain convinced that it is an accurate conception of "reality".

But the truth is, that in all that time, they never really knew that what they believed to be real and true, was in fact real or true. All they ever actually knew, was that their presumption remained functional. AND, that it gave them enormous comfort, and purpose, and joy, and drive to presume it to be true.

Now, you could tell yourself that because there is no way for you to ever know that anyone else loves you, and that because you cannot know it to be so, you are never going to just presume it to be so. But, the result will be that you will go through life without the very significant benefits that come with "making believe" that someone can and love you, in spite of your uncertainty, and then allowing yourself to love them, in turn.

This is what most theists are doing. They are "making believe" that the God of their choosing does exist, does recognize them, does love them, and that they can then dare to love that God in return. And because they trust in this "make believe", they get some very important benefits from it, regardless of whether or not it's a "true and accurate" conception of reality.

See what I'm saying?

 

[Left Coast]

Well, the same general source ideal.

I think that's your projection, not the fact of the matter.

Interesting that this mystery affords we humans so much room to invent and embody our own solutions, don't you think?

It is fascinating, if not at times disturbing or amusing. But I also don't see it as just one mystery.

I mean, the ideals are man-made, but the mystery into which we inject these ideals is as real as we are. And through it, we find the solutions that we seek.

I find this a fascinating phenomenon. But then I don't get all bent out of shape over the fact that god-ideals are man-made. Since, all ideals are man-made made, and man is as legitimate a manifestation of "physics" as any other aspect of physical existence.

Mkay.

I think you are short-changing yourself regarding the possibilities open to you because of those answers that you can't have. And I suspect that it's the result of an irrational bias against "make-believe".

I'm irrationally biased against things that are made up. Mkay.

I'll give you an example.

A husband and wife can spend their whole adult lives together, believing that they love each other. And yet in all that time, neither one of them is ever going to be able to know how the other feels or think about them. They "make believe" that the their partner loves them, and so long as that belief remains functional, they remain convinced that it is an accurate conception of "reality".

But the truth is, that in all that time, they never really knew that what they believed to be real and true, was in fact real or true. All they ever actually knew, was that their presumption remained functional. AND, that it gave them enormous comfort, and purpose, and joy, and drive to presume it to be true.

Now, you could tell yourself that because there is no way for you to ever know that anyone else loves you, and that because you cannot know it to be so, you are never going to just presume it to be so. But, the result will be that you will go through life without the very significant benefits that come with "making believe" that someone can and love you, in spite of your uncertainty, and then allowing yourself to love them, in turn.

This is what most theists are doing. They are "making believe" that the God of their choosing does exist, does recognize them, does love them, and that they can then dare to love that God in return. And because they trust in this "make believe", they get some very important benefits from it, regardless of whether or not it's a "true and accurate" conception of reality.

See what I'm saying?

I do, and I'm sorry, but it's a really, really bad analogy. As a partner, I have ample verifiable evidence that my partner loves and cares for me. He goes out of his way to do kind things for me all the time - buys me things he knows I'll like, cleans the house, runs errands, etc. He hugs me, kisses me, tells me out loud he loves me and how special I am to him, etc. I could gush on, but you get the idea. If the situation were extreme, I could actually hook him up to a polygraph and ask him if he loves me to confirm if he's lying.

Now, none of those things provide absolute certainty of the conclusion that he loves me, but they provide a high degree of probabilistic confidence based on the available evidence, such that it would be highly implausible to imagine the opposite being the case.

All of that is precisely nothing like "make believe," where we pretend things are real that we pull straight from imagination with no evidence to support it. And it's nothing like the poorly evidenced conclusions theists make about pretty much every version of God(s) I've heard of.

 

[PureX]

I think that's your projection, not the fact of the matter.

It is fascinating, if not at times disturbing or amusing. But I also don't see it as just one mystery.

Mkay.

I'm irrationally biased against things that are made up. Mkay.

I do, and I'm sorry, but it's a really, really bad analogy. As a partner, I have ample verifiable evidence that my partner loves and cares for me. He goes out of his way to do kind things for me all the time - buys me things he knows I'll like, cleans the house, runs errands, etc. He hugs me, kisses me, tells me out loud he loves me and how special I am to him, etc. I could gush on, but you get the idea. If the situation were extreme, I could actually hook him up to a polygraph and ask him if he loves me to confirm if he's lying.

But all of this "evidence" is actual (functional). It only stands as evidence of truthfulness so long as you assume that actions = truth. Yet we all know that would be a faulty assumption, as actions can also deceive us. .

You believe your spouse loves you because he acts as if he loves you. And you want it to be true, so you presume it to be true until proven otherwise. Right? And so long as this presumption keeps 'working' for you (you keep getting what you want from it) you will keep presuming it to be true. Right?

This is very similar to what the theist is doing. He cannot know that God exists, or that God loves him. But he wants it to be true, because he wants to experience the 'actual evidence' of it in his life. So he presumes it to be true. And he acts as if it is true. And in so doing he begins to receive the actualized evidence that he wanted. And so long as he continues to trust in his presumptions, he continues to receive the benefits of that trust, as his 'evidence'. And so long as he continues to receive the wanted benefits of his presumptions, he will continue to presume them.

All that being said, the only difference, then, between your faith in your spouse's love, and the theist's faith in God, is that your spouse is a physical phenomenon, while God is a metaphysical phenomenon. Yet even still, the benefits you receive from acting as if are both physical, and metaphysical, just as the benefits the theist receives from acting as if are both physical, and metaphysical.

Now, none of those things provide absolute certainty of the conclusion that he loves me, but they provide a high degree of probabilistic confidence based on the available evidence, such that it would be highly implausible to imagine the opposite being the case.

Sure, ... conformation bias based on the desired result. Just like with theists.

Turns out "making believe" and "acting as if" are the two most effective methods of achieving our needs and desires that we humans have. And truth be told, they are very nearly the only effective methods we have. Which is why I see rejecting theism based on such an inconsequential physical difference as being a rather foolish choice.

 

[Left Coast]

But all of this "evidence" is actual (functional). It only stands as evidence of truthfulness so long as you assume that actions = truth. Yet we all know that would be a faulty assumption, as actions can also deceive us.

Can be, but there's probability involved in the judgment of whether we actually are being deceived. The more evidence we have in support of a person's actions being genuine, the more reason we have to believe they actually are genuine, and the less probable it is that we're being deceived.

You believe your spouse loves you because he acts as if he loves you. And you want it to be true, so you presume it to be true until proven otherwise. Right?

No, incorrect. My belief that my partner loves me isn't based on wanting it to be true. It's based on an assessment of the actual evidence, which anyone could verify (and in fact many people in my life have told me, independently, that it's clear how fond he is of me). I didn't start out assuming it because I wanted it and then wait for it to be proven false. I started out completely neutral, when we first met, and made an assessment of his feelings based on his actions over months and years.

And so long as this presumption keeps 'working' for you (you keep getting what you want from it) you will keep presuming it to be true. Right?

As I think I've now explained, no.

This is very similar to what the theist is doing. He cannot know that God exists, or that God loves him. But he wants it to be true, because he wants to experience the 'actual evidence' of it in his life. So he presumes it to be true. And he acts as if it is true. And in so doing he begins to receive the actualized evidence that he wanted. And so long as he continues to trust in his presumptions, he continues to receive the benefits of that trust, as his 'evidence'. And so long as he continues to receive the wanted benefits of his presumptions, he will continue to presume them.

That is what we call confirmation bias. You start with the conclusion you want, and then look for evidence that it is so. It's an ingenious way to deceive yourself into believing something that actually isn't reasonable.

What you're basically trying to do is start with the idea that because we can't know things with absolute certainty, that therefore we're justified in just making up beliefs about reality because they make us feel good, even in the absence of strong evidence. That is, in my view, a profoundly misguided way to build a worldview. It's a rationalization. I'm not interested.

All that being said, the only difference, then, between your faith in your spouse's love, and the theist's faith in God, is that your spouse is a physical phenomenon, while God is a metaphysical phenomenon.

I only have "faith" if by that you mean "confidence." But my confidence is evidence-based and probabilistic, which is exactly the opposite of theistic faith. And "metaphysical" in this context is just another way of saying "supernatural," which is just another way of saying unverifiable. Again, nothing like my partner's actions.

Yet even still, the benefits you receive from acting as if are both physical, and metaphysical, just as the benefits the theist receives from acting as if are both physical, and metaphysical.
Sure, ... conformation bias based on the desired result. Just like with theists.

You're equivocating. I hope I've thoroughly explained how.

Turns out "making believe" and "acting as if" are the two most effective methods of achieving our needs and desires that we humans have. And truth be told, they are very nearly the only effective methods we have. Which is why I see rejecting theism based on such an inconsequential physical difference as being a rather foolish choice.

The time to believe something is true is when there is evidence for it, not simply because it makes us feel good or because no one has disproved it.

 

[PureX]

Can be, but there's probability involved in the judgment of whether we actually are being deceived. The more evidence we have in support of a person's actions being genuine, the more reason we have to believe they actually are genuine, and the less probable it is that we're being deceived.

But this is circular reasoning. Probability is based on evidence, and evidential accuracy is based on probability. It's the very definition of confirmation bias.

My belief that my partner loves me isn't based on wanting it to be true. It's based on an assessment of the actual evidence, which anyone could verify (and in fact many people in my life have told me, independently, that it's clear how fond he is of me).

But that "affirmative evidence" is being defined and recognized by what you want 'love' to be, to you, is it not? How you want to see love manifested in your life. Just as "God" is being defined by what the theist wants God to be. And just as the theist's "affirming evidence" is being defined and determined by that same desire being fulfilled.

I didn't start out assuming it because I wanted it and then wait for it to be proven false. I started out completely neutral, when we first met, and made an assessment of his feelings based on his actions over months and years.

I think if you think about it, you will realize that is not true. You may have been neutral about the individual (probability), but not about the desire. Not about the definition of "evidence".

That is what we call confirmation bias. You start with the conclusion you want, and then look for evidence that it is so. It's an ingenious way to deceive yourself into believing something that actually isn't reasonable.

What I am trying to explain to you is that it inevitable to the human experience and understanding of 'what is'. We imagine "reality" based on very minimal experience, and desire, starting in the womb. And everything we "learn" about it after that is being determine by how it 'fits in' with that imagined reality. By how it "works" relative to our desires and expectations. And that is our innate, inescapable bias: that pre-imagined reality, and how every new experience we have gets defined and "probable-ized' by it.

What you're basically trying to do is start with the idea that because we can't know things with absolute certainty, that therefore we're justified in just making up beliefs about reality because they make us feel good, even in the absence of strong evidence. That is, in my view, a profoundly misguided way to build a worldview. It's a rationalization. I'm not interested.

What I am saying is that because we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, our presumptions of probable truthfulness are based on wishful thinking. That is the wish that what we believe so far about reality, is accurate, even though it almost certainly is not. Because that imaginary, presumed "reality" that we have invented in our minds, and are using to assess the probability of truthfulness is, itself, improbable.

Understanding this gives us the ability and the license to alter our presumed (imaginary) "reality" to better suit our needs and desires. We're doing it, anyway. But once we realize we're doing it, we can do it more effectively.

 

[Left Coast]

But this is circular reasoning. Probability is based on evidence, and evidential accuracy is based on probability. It's the very definition of confirmation bias.

No, it isn't. You're just saying the same thing in two different ways. A thing happens. We evaluate what the possible explanations for that thing are, based on what we know. Some of those explanations are inherently more or less probable, based on what they are and what the thing we saw was. As we see more things happen, we keep recalculating the probability that our explanation is the most probable, or if at some point it becomes unprobable. That's not circular, and it's literally the opposite of confirmation bias. It's a textbook example of being as objective and reasonable as possible.

But that "affirmative evidence" is being defined and recognized by what you want 'love' to be, to you, is it not?

Again, no. Love has a definition in English. I didn't invent it. There are behaviors consistent with that definition. And behaviors inconsistent with that definition.

How you want to see love manifested in your life. Just as "God" is being defined by what the theist wants God to be. And just as the theist's "affirming evidence" is being defined and determined by that same desire being fulfilled.

Incorrect, again. As I said before, theists can and do define "God" in a myriad of ways. However they define it, we can look at that definition and determine what evidence we would expect if such a thing existed. Then we look out in the world, and see if that evidence is there.

Now some theists play a cute word game where they'll say "God is the universe" or "God is love" or "God is life." And, okay, if you want to define your God as Oprah, okay sure, your "God" exists. But you're basically muddying the waters with those semantics.

I think if you think about it, you will realize that is not true. You may have been neutral about the individual (probability), but not about the desire. Not about the definition of "evidence".

If I asked you to write down right now a list of what the evidence would be that a person loves me, I'd be willing to bet money that my partner ticks most if not all the boxes. That, to me, is a pretty strong indication that I'm not just deluding myself into thinking he loves me when he actually doesn't. And you simply can't complete that same exercise with any god I'm familiar with.

What I am trying to explain to you is that it inevitable to the human experience and understanding of 'what is'. We imagine "reality" based on very minimal experience, and desire, starting in the womb. And everything we "learn" about it after that is being determine by how it 'fits in' with that imagined reality. By how it "works" relative to our desires and expectations. And that is our innate, inescapable bias: that pre-imagined reality, and how every new experience we have gets defined and "probable-ized' by it.

Our perceptions of reality change and adapt all the time based on new incoming evidence that shifts our view. And yes, of course we all have biases - biases that can be reduced, if not outright eliminated, by independent verification of the data we've collected. And yes, of course quite a bit of our worldview building is a consequence of childhood (and adulthood) trial and error - learning "what works," as you say. Put your hand on a hot stove - ouchie. Lesson learned. That's not a "confirmation bias," that's an accurate assessment of the danger posed by that object.

And none of that is an excuse to retain belief in something you have no good evidence for simply because it makes you feel good. And that's what you're trying to do here. You're trying to rationalize your theism by casting doubt on our entire ability to perceive anything accurately. And that dog just won't hunt. Science is too good a method.

What I am saying is that because we cannot know anything with absolute certainty, our presumptions of probable truthfulness are based on wishful thinking.

No, they're simply not. You're just incorrect here. Our presumptions of probable truthfulness are based on the actual evidence we have. If I have to turn the key in my car's ignition to get the engine to start one time, and then another time, and then literally thousands of times, and in fact my car NEVER starts without me putting my key in the ignition, it's not "wishful thinking" for me to infer that, hey I need to put my key in the ignition if I want my car to start. Wishful thinking would be believing that if I don't have my keys, I can cause my car to start with a prayer to my God. I'm sorry, you're not going to get away with equivocating between those two scenarios. They're not equivalent. One is probabilistic and evidence-based. The other is a wish.

That is the wish that what we believe so far about reality, is accurate, even though it almost certainly is not. Because that imaginary, presumed "reality" that we have invented in our minds, and are using to assess the probability of truthfulness is, itself, improbable.

I have no idea how you did that math. But even if the existence of our universe itself is improbable, that doesn't make all events within that universe and its physics equally probable. Again, you're just in error there.

Understanding this gives us the ability and the license to alter our presumed (imaginary) "reality" to better suit our needs and desires. We're doing it, anyway. But once we realize we're doing it, we can do it more effectively.

Believing you can actually alter reality outside your head with your thoughts is a really dangerous, and repeatedly debunked, idea. It's the reason psychotic people do dangerous things because they believe they're invincible and nothing bad will happen. It's the reason right-wing fundamentalists believe they won't get sick from COVID if they just pray to their god for protection.

I think we've sufficiently derailed this thing. I've explained this stuff before to you and pointed out where your thinking goes wrong, I think several times over several threads. If you want to chat more about it, I'd suggest you start a new thread.

 

[Honey Lemon]

Hello, I am studying different theologies and was wondering your take on it. Do you believe in a god or gods? And who are they? How does your belief about 'god(s)' affect/impact your life? How does it affect your practical life? How you spend your time, your priorities, how you act? Many people don't consider to have any theology in life. I want to understand how what someone believes affects their life's in a practical way. Thank you.

 

[Left Coast]

Hello, I am studying different theologies and was wondering your take on it. Do you believe in a god or gods? And who are they?

Yes, yes I do: