Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[Copernicus]

It really is as @SalixIncendium said. You described a very, very Abrahamic model of deity.

To offer some insight on some why's of this from someone who isn't Abrahamic - something I've noticed is that folks interpret non-Abrahamic theology through a distinctly Abrahamic lens. The result is they project Abrahamic assumptions onto these theologies and consequently fail to really understand them on their own terms. It's usually unintentional... Abrahamic theology and religion simply has that much of a stranglehold on how folks in the West approach understanding theology and religion. So much of a stranglehold folks can't think outside of that box even if they want to. This bias is more well-known and minded in modern cultural studies, but the general public hasn't really caught up to that. I try to remember that every single time I notice stuff like this as a non-Abrahamic and start getting frustrated over and over again at folks not understanding (or worse, straight up disregarding) non-Abrahamic theology and religion on its own terms.

My instructions for the exercise were quite clear. But you instead decided to list the qualities of what you perceive a deity to be, which are very Abrahamic. If you don't know any gods or their qualities beyond that paradigm, it's okay. No one, least of all I, will judge you for it.

Thanks, guys, but you are all doing the same thing--avoiding any explanation of the difference between my list and the god concept that you think is non-Abrahamic. I have visited a lot of different countries, including Hindu, Buddhist, and other countries. AFAICT, you folks are all Westerners with some specific ideas about Eastern religions. However, the Abrahamic god is not the only one in history. The world has been full of gods, not just in Europe and Asia, but on other continents as well. Eastern religions are not all of the same opinion on the nature of gods. I've visited a lot of temples and talked to a lot of people about their concepts of the deities (and bodhisattvas) they worship. They all share certain characteristics that were on my list, yet you persist in saying that my list was skewed towards the Abrahamic deity. That is nonsensical, and you would know it if you chose to take a wider perspective on the history of religions everywhere else in the world.

I'm happy to listen to your ideas about what is different about the non-Abrahamic ideals that you think need to be addressed. Please be so kind as to make them explicit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t agree that we’re talking about phenomena independent of human experience.

If not, then I guess we are talking about a thing that only exists as a mental / psychological construct which only "exists" in human minds?
Gods cease to exist when the last person capable of abstract thinking dies?
As such, I would agree. Gods, like unicorns, exist as mental constructs in human minds.

The second you go beyond that and claim that these things also exist in external reality, independent of humans, then you are making a very different type of claim with an equally different burden of proof.

Indeed, there can be no possible way of apprehending any phenomena independently of human experience.

Now, I feel like you are just trying to derail the actual point being made.

Please explain the point you are trying to make with this statement and how it ties into the point I was making.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, this thread has gone about as I expected.

I'm not sure whether to be relieved or just more frustrated about that.

It confirms that whenever I talk theology to "atheists" (and also some other theists) we are constantly talking past one another because they only think about the divine in Abrahamic or classical monotheist terms. It's why I often just give up on conversations entirely and can't be bothered. Sometimes when I can be bothered, I get told I'm "redefining" things because I'm not Abrahamic or a classical monotheist. So while on the one hand all of this confirms that my frustration comes from constrained approaches to theology born of the Abrahamic cultural hegemony, on the other it does nothing to alleviate the immense frustration I experience as a non-Abrahamic trying to talk theology and be understood or listened to.

Oh well.

Well, if you are going to talk about specifics of theology, then you are off course going to run into "personal traits" of gods. And people will generally consider the "god" image that is primary / dominant in the culture they come from.

I don't think you should be expecting something else. The only thing you can do is clarify whenever it comes up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I live in London. One of the most culturally and ethnically diverse cities in the world. If I was to view the world through a lense similar to the one you’ve described above, I’d go around in terror of my neighbours. But I don’t, because there’s nothing to be gained from adopting such a paranoid view of the people around me. For the record, I have several Moslem neighbours and colleagues, and none of them have given me any cause to suspect that they may be ISIS (or Hamas, or Hezbolla) sympathisers.

In short, your prejudice is showing; which speaks directly to my observation about tolerance.

The only thing showing here, is you running away from the actual point that was being made. This betrays your running:

For the record, I have several Moslem neighbours and colleagues, and none of them have given me any cause to suspect that they may be ISIS (or Hamas, or Hezbolla) sympathisers.

That's great. I wasn't talking about such muslims. I was talking about muslims that ARE isis sympathisers. And openly. Not secretly.
The hypothetical was that you KNOW such a guy just moved into the house nextdoors.

Please respond to the point made instead of playing this dodgeball game.

You claimed that beliefs don't matter, we should be tolerant of beliefs and only judge actions.

I'm challenging that with the hypothetical to show that NO, we should NOT be tolerant "by default" for other beliefs. We should NOT refrain to judge beliefs "by default".

Beliefs inform actions.

Why do we have programs working with muslim communities for early detection of radicalisation?
Why bother with "de-radicalizing" programs?

If beliefs don't matter, if we should be tolerant of beliefs, if we shouldn't judge beliefs,.... then how should we treat our hypothetical ISIS -sympathizing neighbour?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, we can weigh, calibrate, and predict the behaviour of material phenomena. We cannot do this in the same way with mental or spiritual phenomena,

We also can't do it with magical phenomena, unicorn phenomena, extra-dimensional alien travel phenomena,...
Primarily because we can't even determine if those things are real or not.
Although I have a feeling that you are very willing to simply ignore / dismiss the unicorns and extra-dimensional alien travels at face value.

but that does not mean that there is no meaningful experience at the level of mind or spirit.

There sure is meaningful experience at the level of the mind. It's what neurology studies. And psychology, psychiatry from another angle though still in tandem.
This is brain function. Which is also material.

It’s my guess you would dismiss even the possibility of a spiritual experience,

Absolutely not. I have spiritual experiences all the time.
When listening to music, when playing music, when watching a sunset,...

but that is evidence only of your not yet having had such an experience.

The problem here is not the experience. It's the stuff you are inventing to explain it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's another feature that's worth considering. Once scientists believed there was something called the "ether'. It was considered necessary for electromagnetic waves to travel in a vacuum. Later, it was discovered to be unnecessary, so it was dropped. Totally dropped, and nobody refers to it any more. I'm sure that if a more compelling explanation for the gravitational anomalies that are currently explained by "dark matter" were to be discovered that would be the fate of dark matter too.

And that is one huge difference between science and religion.

Absolutely.

In fact, not that I'm a physicist, but I wouldn't be surprised at all that dark matter and energy will see that same fate.
The whole situation reminds me a bit of Einstein looking at Newtonian physics.

Newtonian physics worked really well (and it still does when used on the scale of "human" speeds and "earth style" gravity).
But then we looked further and it turns out it didn't work with high speeds or high masses. As speed / mass went up, the accuracy of the equations become progressively worse.

Along comes Einstein and adds a relativistic factor. Suddenly it all fits again, both on our "human" scale as well as on the scale of the high speeds and masses.

And today, we look further still. Now we hit yet another few bumps: Einsteinian physics breaks down at T = 0 or in black holes. Galaxies seem to be missing gravity. Space is expanding faster then it should. Again there seems to be something missing.

Gravity seems to be playing a central role in all of this. So yea, if the solution to this really turns out to be some type of dark matter, honestly I'ld be surprised.

But in the mean time though.... it's still the best we can do.

 

[PureX]

If there are no human beings existent anywhere, what is there of reality? Your comments aren't clear to me.

That's an incoherent question. If there are no human beings, it can't be asked nor answered. Why should we assume that it could be?

Incomplete understanding with awareness that the understanding is incomplete is not the same thing as imaginary understanding.

Of course it is. All our "understanding" is imagined. That's what understanding is: an imagined concept of what is.

Of course we can know how accurate our conception of objective reality is because we can form reasoned expectations based upon that knowledge that remain usefully predictive over time.

All based on functionality. If our theory of objective reality functions, we presume it's knowledge. Until it no longer functions, and then we presume it must have been wrong all along. That's not really knowing, though. It's just presuming to know.

Some aspects of your complaint seem to be that there is bias in terms of what lines of inquiry are pursued, and I don't dismiss that, but by the same token, it is not reasonable for science to pursue imagined phenomena that have no underlying evidentiary support. As an absurd example, it would be unreasonable to expect science to conduct research into unicorns.

That doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere and some way that science cannot reach. The limitations of science do not determine the limits of objective reality. Yet this is an axiom that I see most atheist-materialist-scientism-cultists believing in and regurgitating constanty.

 

[PureX]

Fine. I am indeed not willing to do that. Be at ease.

How many gods are NOT considered the source of life's circumstances compared to those that are? How many are considered implorable in that regard compared to those that are not?

 

[LuisDantas]

How many gods are NOT considered the source of life's circumstances compared to those that are? How many are considered implorable in that regard compared to those that are not?

I don't know right now. But why would that even matter? Which numbers would be relevant, and for which purposes?

 

[PureX]

I don't know right now. But why would that even matter? Which numbers would be relevant, and for which purposes?

So your claim is that unless the similarities are absolute, they don't exist or are irrelevant?

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks, guys, but you are all doing the same thing--avoiding any explanation of the difference between my list and the god concept that you think is non-Abrahamic.

What makes a god-concept non-Abrahamic is the existence of people who consider it a god-concept and its origin coming from outside of the Abrahamic traditions.

Examples include the Japanese Kami, the Hindu Deva, the Greek and Roman Pantheons, the African Orisha, the Egyptian Deities (which include Isis, Osiris and Horus), Zoroastrianism's Ahura Mazda, the god-conceptions from Deism, Pantheism and Panentheism, the Mesopotamian deities (including Marduk and Inanna), and who knows how many others.

There are no meaningful formal boundaries and no well agreed requirements or properties to establish what does qualify and what does not, mainly because the traditions that establish them are so many and so varied in premises, natures, means and goals.

I have visited a lot of different countries, including Hindu, Buddhist, and other countries. AFAICT, you folks are all Westerners with some specific ideas about Eastern religions. However, the Abrahamic god is not the only one in history.

Definitely, they are not. Nor are they particularly good examples of the set as a whole.

The world has been full of gods, not just in Europe and Asia, but on other continents as well. Eastern religions are not all of the same opinion on the nature of gods.

So, so true!

I've visited a lot of temples and talked to a lot of people about their concepts of the deities (and bodhisattvas) they worship. They all share certain characteristics that were on my list,

The eleven-items list from post #53?

I may have misunderstood what you meant to say with that list, then. I thought you were making a list of required attributes. Instead, it seems that you meant to make a list of varied claims that won't necessarily happen together.

yet you persist in saying that my list was skewed towards the Abrahamic deity. That is nonsensical, and you would know it if you chose to take a wider perspective on the history of religions everywhere else in the world.

I'm happy to listen to your ideas about what is different about the non-Abrahamic ideals that you think need to be addressed. Please be so kind as to make them explicit.

I consider "god" and "deity" free-styled, not inherently meaningful terms. It isn't really reasonable to use the same word for the Abrahamic entities as well as the Devas and the Kami, for instance. Extending the concept to include, for instance, the Boddhisatvas further dissolves any inherent meaning that the word might have hypothetically had.

If there is a general meaning for those words, it must be that there are people willing to lend them meaning.

 

[LuisDantas]

So your claim is that unless the similarities are absolute, they don't exist?

Indeed. They do not exist. As I have repeatedly stated, there is no meaning shared by the various conceptions of gods and deities, even as abstract concepts.

For some reason there is plenty of people attempting to find meaningful similarities anyway. That strikes me as a pointless exercise with not much in the way of defensable motivations.

At first glance it is an attempt to gloss over what must, almost by definition, be meaningful differences. It is a self-defeating effort pretty much from the get-go.

 

[PureX]

Indeed. They do not exist. As I have repeatedly stated, there is no meaning shared by the various conceptions of gods and deities, even as abstract concepts.

For some reason there is plenty of people attempting to find meaningful similarities anyway. That strikes me as a pointless exercise with not much in the way of defensable motivations.

At first glance it is an attempt to gloss over what must, almost by definition, be meaningful differences. It is a self-defeating effort pretty much from the get-go.

The shared understanding among all these god concepts is that of a power greater than ourselves that we can implore and obtain circumstantial help from. The gods can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, can know what we cannot know, and see what we cannot see. I am aware of no gods ever devised that were not designed and maintained to fulfill these very common human desires.

 

[LuisDantas]

The shared understanding among all these god concepts is that of a power greater than ourselves that we can implore and obtain circumstantial help from. The gods can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, can know what we cannot know, and see what we cannot see. I am aware of no gods ever devised that were not designed and maintained to fulfill these very common human desires.

Best of luck evidencing this claim of yours. Not that I would recommend that you try, mind you.

 

[PureX]

Best of luck evidencing this claim of yours. Not that I would recommend that you try, mind you.

That's easy, name one God that does not fulfill this conceptual purpose. Just one.

 

[MikeF]

That's an incoherent question. If there are no human beings, it can't be asked nor answered. Why should we assume that it could be?

Ahhh, how downright unimaginative of you.

Of course it is. All our "understanding" is imagined. That's what understanding is: an imagined concept of what is.

And yet there are very real events and circumstances that occur in our lives that we would never have imagined to have happened to us, yet they occurred anyway. Beyond that, we are not simply trapped and isolated inside our own heads. We have the ability to corroborate and verify our experiences, although that fact seems inconvenient to your worldview. If that is what works best for you, then so be it. Others may wish to choose a different path. A more realistic one.

All based on functionality. If our theory of objective reality functions, we presume it's knowledge. Until it no longer functions, and then we presume it must have been wrong all along. That's not really knowing, though. It's just presuming to know.

Well, if you want to label understanding the properties and characteristics of phenomena and causes for events as investigating the functionality of the Cosmos, then fine. If our reasoned expectations from accumulated experience is useful, then yes, it is knowledge. If that knowledge is useful, yet incomplete, gaining further understanding does not make previous knowledge wrong nor negate its usefulness. It simply means that improved understanding equates to increased knowledge which in turn is more useful.

You seem to want to focus on the inherent limitations that exist at the borders of our understanding, and simply dismissing out of hand the great corpus of knowledge that we have justified confidence in. Perhaps you should reflect on why that might be.

That doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere and some way that science cannot reach. The limitations of science do not determine the limits of objective reality. Yet this is an axiom that I see most atheist-materialist-scientism-cultists believing in and regurgitating constanty.

This is the reality that is so inconvenient to your worldview: We cannot treat as likely or possible everything that we can imagine that is entirely unevidenced. We can imagine things and scenario's that do not conform to physical laws because the abstract constructs of thought are not bound by physical laws. Pigs without adequate wings or other aids can fly in our imagination because there are no physical components to the flying pig other than what make up the abstraction, be it neurochemical, words on a page, or a drawing.

It is the limits of reality that limit objective reality, limits which do not apply to abstract thought, and hence there is a need for careful demarcation between which of our thoughts remain synthetic to the limits of objective reality and which are unrealistic fantasy. This need for demarcation is what your so-called "atheist-materialist-scientism-cultists" understand and accept, and which others must ignore to maintain their artificial abstract constructions of reality as possibilities.

 

[Heyo]

What makes a god-concept non-Abrahamic is the existence of people who consider it a god-concept and its origin coming from outside of the Abrahamic traditions.

Examples include the Japanese Kami,

I'm not sure the Kami even are gods. They are a good example of non Abrahamic, non Western concepts at the edge of a possible common understanding. Kami are, in my understanding, more like animist spirits then they are like Western (including polytheist) gods.

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks, guys, but you are all doing the same thing--avoiding any explanation of the difference between my list and the god concept that you think is non-Abrahamic.

Did it occur to you that the reason why I've been limiting my comments in this thread is because I'm not an atheist and this thread is specifically intended for atheists to describe their ideas and knowledge about gods? I stayed out of this thread for a long time because I didn't feel like it was my place to post in it. I still don't. And that's the main reason why I am "avoiding" what you are asking. Put it into a new thread and we'll see - there's a lot to discuss and share there, just don't expect me to debate as that's really not my thing.

To add, I don't fully agree with what Salix said about your list, so please do not lump my thoughts in with theirs; we're not the same person.

Well, if you are going to talk about specifics of theology, then you are off course going to run into "personal traits" of gods. And people will generally consider the "god" image that is primary / dominant in the culture they come from.

I don't think you should be expecting something else. The only thing you can do is clarify whenever it comes up.

I know that, hence the defeatist "oh well" at the end there? But it really should not be too much to ask for basic respect. If I had a dollar for every time I've more or less been told to shut up because Pagan theology doesn't look like Abrahamic theology and is therefore irrelevant, I would have a lot more of my mortgage paid off. If it were just the cultural hegemony that would be one thing; it's annoying, but it is what it is. But feeling erased, ignored, dismissed, and denigrated? From both Abrahamic theists and their atheist detractors who should damned well know better given they have to deal with similar crap as a minority group?

It sucks.

It often feels like nobody listens and nobody cares. That sucks.

And responses like this are kind of an unfortunate example of exactly what I'm talking about there. It's totally not that society should maybe be more considerate of human diversity, it's totally that minority groups should just suck it.

Okay, meh, nothing new there. It's practically a favorite pass time of humanity. Yay.

 

[PureX]

And yet there are very real events and circumstances that occur in our lives that we would never have imagined to have happened to us.

We imagine them fitting into our concept of reality as they happen. Perception is conception.

Beyond that, we are not simply trapped and isolated inside our own heads. We have the ability to corroborate and verify our experiences, although that fact seems inconvenient to your worldview.

You make way too much out of corroboration. That we humans will share much of our concept of reality is to be expected. And does not make our conceptions of reality more accurate. For a very long time our shared eperience and therefor conception of reality included a flat Earth. Now it includes a spherical Earth. At some point in the future it's geometric shape will be of little consequence, and we will conceptualize it more as a holistic phenomenon. And every time we will have had a ' corroborating consensus'.

Our concepts of 'what is' are imaginary, limited, and inaccurate to a degree that we are not able to determine. And this is as true collectively as it is true individually.

Well, if you want to label understanding the properties and characteristics of phenomena and causes for events as investigating the functionality of the Cosmos, then fine.

Function is all we can know. And even that we can only know relative to a chosen or imposed context.

If our reasoned expectations from accumulated experience is useful, then yes, it is knowledge.

It is functional knowledge. Not true knowledge. Within a given functional context, the Earth is flat. Once we expanded that functional context, we discovered that the Earth was spherical. And when we are able to expand our functional context yet again, we will discover that it's shape was not especially relevant to 'what the Earth is'. And we will imagine a new concept of the Earth based on a new functional context.

But what did any of this have to do with the truth of what the Earth is? Nothing. It was all about what we THINK the Earth is: what we are imagining it to be. And how we are interacting with it as a result.

If that knowledge is useful, yet incomplete, gaining further understanding does not make previous knowledge wrong nor negate its usefulness. It simply means that improved understanding equates to increased knowledge which in turn is more useful.

Usefulness is not truthfulness. Knowledge is not wisdom.

You seem to want to focus on the inherent limitations that exist at the borders of our understanding,...

It's not "at the borders of our understanding", it's an innate limitation that permeates ALL our understanding. And until we learn to recognize and accept it, we will never get past it. And the days of or being able to remain clever but unwise are coming to an end.

and simply dismissing out of hand the great corpus of knowledge that we have justified confidence in. Perhaps you should reflect on why that might be.

As we are currently on a path of destroying ourselves, I would say all that confidence is wildly misplaced.

We can imagine things and scenario's that do not conform to physical laws because the abstract constructs of thought are not bound by physical laws. Pigs without adequate wings or other aids can fly in our imagination because there are no physical components to the flying pig other than what make up the abstraction, be it neurochemical, words on a page, or a drawing.

That's how imagination transcends the physicality that generates it, and proves itself far superior. But it has to be bound by wisdom (not functional knowledge) or it will destroy us.

 

[MikeF]

We imagine them fitting into our concept of reality as they happen. Perception is conception.

Ummm, no. No imagination required, just cold, hard realities that can't be ignored.

You make way too much out of corroboration.

And I feel you give it short shrift, so here we are.

That we humans will share much of our concept of reality is to be expected. And does not make our conceptions of reality more accurate. For a very long time our shared eperience and therefor conception of reality included a flat Earth. Now it includes a spherical Earth. At some point in the future it's geometric shape will be of little consequence, and we will conceptualize it more as a holistic phenomenon. And every time we will have had a ' corroborating consensus'.
... AND...
It is functional knowledge. Not true knowledge. Within a given functional context, the Earth is flat. Once we expanded that functional context, we discovered that the Earth was spherical. And when we are able to expand our functional context yet again, we will discover that it's shape was not especially relevant to 'what the Earth is'. And we will imagine a new concept of the Earth based on a new functional context.

But what did any of this have to do with the truth of what the Earth is? Nothing. It was all about what we THINK the Earth is: what we are imagining it to be. And how we are interacting with it as a result.

Excellent example. This gets to the keystone of what I am talking about. Our perspective, or vantage point has limits, and what lies outside of the limits of our ability to observe is unknown. From the limited perspective of our early ancestors, describing the limited perceived portion of the earth as flat was more than reasonable. What was unreasonable was to make declarative statements about what was beyond our range of observation and experience. That is one of the main lessons taken to heart during the scientific revolution. If our early ancestors were operating under modern scientific standards and principles, their position would be that the extent of the earth is unknown. They could speculate or hypothesize somewhat beyond what is observed, but such speculation would be held with low confidence or appropriate skepticism. Likewise, they could conclude that at least in some locations, there were pockets of molten earth that periodically broke through the surface of the earth, but they could in no way infer that it was an indication of a whole different realm of fiery existence where bad people went after death.

It seems you want to insist on maintaining the tradition of our primitive ancestors of projecting our hopes and fears onto an (currently) unknowable unknown.

Function is all we can know. And even that we can only know relative to a chosen or imposed context.

Then, for all intents and purposes, function is all there is. It is as simple as that. Beyond this is unknown and you cannot say anything about the unknown with any authority. None of us can.

Usefulness is not truthfulness. Knowledge is not wisdom.

Peanut butter is not Jelly. Red is not yellow. Shall I continue?

It's not "at the borders of our understanding", it's an innate limitation that permeates ALL our understanding. And until we learn to recognize and accept it, we will never get past it. And the days of or being able to remain clever but unwise are coming to an end.

As we are currently on a path of destroying ourselves, I would say all that confidence is wildly misplaced.

That humanity may destroy itself with its objective understanding of the Cosmos is not an argument against our ability to acquire and hold objective knowledge of the Cosmos. On the one hand you seem to say we cannot have objective understanding of reality, and on the other, that our objective understanding is going to get us killed if we are not careful.

How we use our objective understanding is not the same issue as whether we can have an objective understanding in the first place. You seem to have conceded that we can have objective understanding, which is all that I am arguing.

That's how imagination transcends the physicality that generates it, and proves itself far superior. But it has to be bound by wisdom (not functional knowledge) or it will destroy us.

Again, how we use objective knowledge is a separate issue from whether we can acquire objective knowledge, which we can.

What is considered wisdom is largely a matter of subjective preference. What is considered wise varies over time, cultures, and between individuals.