Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[RestlessSoul]

An observation requires an observer, but there are mechanisms to corroborate that what is being observed is not solely the product of one's mind. Would you disagree?

There are certainly mechanisms to corroborate that what is being observed is not solely the product of one mind, sure. I think we can discount solipsism for a number of reasons, not least because a solipsistic world view would be psychologically intolerable.

Where we might differ is that it’s my view, based on both theoretical science and philosophy, that there is no precise separation between the object, the observer, nor the act of observation. Distinctions are in all cases somewhat arbitrary, and a function of perception.

 

[osgart]

As an atheist i take all gods seriously in the sense that people live by their dictates. Imagination is a part of how people govern themselves and other people. Things imagined can be forms of someone's ideals. I am always open to hear about these other gods. Im very tired of doom gods, and one's that expect others to follow their dictates.

Of things imagined such as democracy, money, politics, i want to know the values, ideologies, and stories that people live by to act as they do. Gods drive actions in the world so it can be important to know people by the gods they choose. The world was built on imagination just as much as it was built on science.

Also it would be good to know how any gods are able to exist.

Some gods i can assign truth values too even though i don't see them as real. Its entirely possible that people have gods they don't believe are existent, but nonetheless provide them with motivations to live by. Gods are like peope, it's worthwhile to get to know the ones that wield power in people's minds. In some sense anyone can give something god status in the scale of importance in their lives; even some atheists have an all important set of ideas, facts, values that they find to be supreme.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

I know almost nothing about the gods people believe in outside of the god of Abraham.

If one is going to reject all gods, shouldn't one at least have a working understanding of what they are or what they do beyond the Abrahamic paradigm?

Why? How does that information inform the atheist regarding his atheism?

Science requires evidence, not appearance. Dark matter is an example of this. It wasn't apparent until early in the 20th century, and 90 years later, we still know very little about it.

Dark matter was as useless an idea as the gods are until something was observed that it was needed to account for. We don't need to postulate gods to account for any observation. That's not to say that they don't exist and don't modify perceptible reality, but as long as that reality follows regular laws, it doesn't matter that they have a god to thank for their existence. What if Thor really is the source of lightning and thunder, and if he weren't real or ceased to exist, so would thunder and lightning. OK, but that's useless information EVEN IF CORRECT. It just means that some day, they might disappear. What to do with that knowledge? Nothing.

I know you had some issues regarding the meaning of appearance in this thread, but for me, appearance means how something presents itself to the senses, which makes it evidence, evidence being the noun form of the adjective evident, that is, evidence is what appears to the senses. The next step is identify the significance of the evidence - what it implies about reality, information that becomes useful if it can be applied to the decisions of daily life to facilitate desired outcomes.

Fiction is real. You seem not to understand this. Being 'representational' does not mean that it's not real. A newspaper drawing of Donald Trump is not Donald Trump. But it's a representation of Donald Trump. And it is just as 'real' as Donald Trump.

The fiction is real - people generate it and it can be purchased and read - but unless it is representational as with metaphor and allegory, which probably shouldn't be called fiction, its referent is not. Nor should a recognizable caricature be called fiction. It's a nonverbal symbol. Yes, Trump is real. The ideas Santa and Trump are real. Drawings of them are real. But only one represents more than an idea. The concept of Santa, though real - it affects how Christmas is celebrated - has no corresponding extramental referent.

Dark matter is not apparent, that's the point. The consensus in cosmology is that the gravitational effect of as yet undetected matter, is necessary to explain the stability of galaxies. Dark in this instance means unobserved.

In this case, unlike the Dark Ages (written records sparse) and the dark side of the moon (not visible from earth), dark matter is literally dark. It doesn't emit photons, just gravitons.

 

[MikeF]

As a follow-on to my previous post, I hope you would agree that people can believe in things that are demonstrable not true and such false beliefs, held as true, can affect their behavior. Is it simply earnestness that produces the neuroimaging effect regardless the veracity of the belief?

Doubtful given the evidence. If you're interested, Dr. Andrew Newberg has quite a bit of literature available on the topic.

So, not primarily earnestness, but rather attitudes about the entity believed in:

This from his USA Today editorial link on website you referenced:

"There seems to be little question that when people view God as loving, forgiving, compassionate and supportive, this more likely results in a very positive view of themselves, and of the world around them. But when God is viewed as dispassionate, vengeful and unforgiving, this can have deleterious effects on one's physical and mental health." USA Today​

​

Seems pretty clear to me that we are talking about the psychosomatic effects of belief. The entity itself is not important, it is the attitudes about the imagined entity that can have both positive or negative effects depending on those attitudes. This is about the placebo effect of positive thinking, which is great, but still leaves the question of whether other positive thinking beliefs or techniques also produce these same health-related benefits described. I am not going to dig deep and examine the quality of the studies, see what controls were used, how double-blind protocols were achieved, whether findings were corroborated by other groups or whether other types of thought techniques were tested, or whether polytheistic and animistic beliefs were also tested, etc.

These studies are exploring and highlighting human behavior, not providing an indication for the existence of any imagined entities.

I would also note that Dr. Newberg seems to have an Abrahamic take on the label 'God'.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you assign attributes or properties to things you know nothing about?

Things I don't know about, haven't been presented to me. So there's nothing there for me to accept or reject.
As for all the gods that have been presented to me, in fact - the general definition of what a god is, tells me the property of "magic" is always present in one form or another.

And you, of course, are certain that "magic" and "supernatural" are attributes or properties all divine entities people call God have?

I haven't yet been presented with one that hasn't.

If you know nothing about these gods, then how can you assign such attributes to them?

I know of no gods that don't require such properties one way or the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you think with the mindset that things not understood or not readily apparent independent of thought being dismissed as fictional would have been conducive to the discoveries science has made in the past few hundred years?

It's a false equivalence to compare these ways of thinking.
One starts from the evidence to come up with ideas and requires those ideas to be independently testable in objective reality.
The other exists entirely in one's imagination and can only rely on, at best, "subjective evidence".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't typically post without thinking things through. Science requires evidence, not appearance. Dark matter is an example of this. It wasn't apparent until early in the 20th century, and 90 years later, we still know very little about it.

It is indeed a good example.

Dark matter wasn't just invented out of the air.
We know there is something there because we can measure the gravity it exerts.
So it has the same properties as matter. Yet we don't see it, so it doesn't reflect or emit, light. Hence "dark".

So "dark matter", while we do not know exactly what it is, is just a label we use to refer to a very detectable, very real, very measureable phenomenon in the commonly observable universe.

In contrast with gods... believers commonly claim to know very well what those gods are. Yet, there is nothing in the commonly observable universe which allows for similar detectability whatsoever. So it's the exact opposite...

The thing that the label "dark matter" refers to, is thus very demonstrably real, very detectable, very measureable in commonly observed reality.
Not so much for gods and their angelic or similar helpers

 

[Little Dragon]

I'm asking atheists to pick any god or gods from any religion beyond the Abrahamic paradigm and list the qualities and/or attributes of that god(s) (without googling) and that god's purpose in that respective paradigm as it relates to that god's followers.

I choose the deity known as Santa.
He delivers christmas gifts to good children and to bad children, the gift of coal.
He knows when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake.
He enjoys mince pies and sherry.
He owns a variety of Reindeer, that can fly.
He lives in the North Pole.
He wears red these days but he used to wear green.
He looks like he is at risk from Diabetes.
He has a beard.
He enslaves elves to produce toys and candy.

 

[Little Dragon]

So "dark matter", while we do not know exactly what it is, is just a label we use to refer to a very detectable, very real, very measureable phenomenon in the commonly observable universe.

Quite, the presence of Dark Matter is indirectly inferred from it's measurable gravitational influence on the rotational velocity of a galaxy.
Gods, cannot be likewise inferred. They are untestable, unmeasurable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What happens in the mind also "exists". All the more so when it effects activity beyond the mind's imagination.

Placebo's are a very well understood phenomenon.
It is pretty well known that mere beliefs (regardless of accuracy) can very well have an effect, for better or worse, on the physical body / physiology.

If you are trying to say that gods in fact can "exist" as psychological constructs... then sure. Darth Vader exists in the same way.

Fiction is real. You seem not to understand this. Being 'representational' does not mean that it's not real. A newspaper drawing of Donald Trump is not Donald Trump. But it's a representation of Donald Trump. And it is just as 'real' as Donald Trump. Likewise, the idea of Donald Trump in our mind is not Donald Trump. It's an imagined representation. But it's still just as real as Donald Trump is.

When you have to start fogging up the meaning of the word "real" in an attempt to try and smuggle in imagined characters as belonging to the realm of "real", it kind of speaks volumes about the strength of your case in support of these characters.

 

[Little Dragon]

What do Gods do? They are the figurehead(s) of the belief system, the narrative. The official representatives, the anthropomorphic reflections of human ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The semantic point is incidental. The significant point is that science regularly hypothesises about phenomena that have not been directly observed or detected.

But not out of the blue.
The DATA gave rise to the need for something other then what was being observed. There is more gravity then the observed mass can account for. Therefor we have an excess of gravity that needs to be accounted for. Dark matter is the label for the thing, whatever it is, that accounts for that excess gravity.

So dark matter is not something that was just invented out of the blue, like your statement seems to be insinuating.
No. Instead, it's very well motivated. The need for this label doesn't come from the physicist who wants to believe... It comes from the data itself. The data required a source of gravity.

That is what dark matter is today: the thing that accounts for the excess gravity that observed matter can't account for.

That's it. To compare that to a god concept, pretty much any god concept, is an obvious false equivalence imo.

I’m not suggesting cosmologists should hypothesise a creator; though some (including the atheist Stephen Hawking) have occasionally taken philosophical diversions into that territory.

Ever scientist has personal beliefs. Don't confuse what he wrote in his commercial books with his work in scientific literature / paper publications.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that the best way to answer the challenge posed by the OP is to break down the concept of a deity in terms of the properties we typically associate with them. Here is a partial list that comes to mind for me:

1. Gods can perform supernatural miracles in the physical world that contravene the laws of nature.
2. Gods may have absolute control over one or more aspects of natural reality (sea, wind, love, war, weather, volcanoes, etc.)
3. Gods are considered socially "above" human beings socially and expect to be obeyed by humans.
4. Gods can be disembodied or embodied spirits.
5. Gods can communicate, interact, and form relationships with human beings.
6. Gods may be predisposed to grant favors for human beings or groups of beings, especially when worshipped, offered sacrifices, and prayed to.
7. Gods have comprehensive knowledge of reality.
8. Gods are immortal and omnipotent.
9. Gods can have emotions such as anger, sympathy, love.
10. Gods are beyond human understanding or comprehension.
11. Gods are thought to embody perfection in all their attributes.

 

[Little Dragon]

I think that the best way to answer the challenge posed by the OP is to break down the concept of a deity in terms of the properties we typically associate with them. Here is a partial list that comes to mind for me:

1. Gods can perform supernatural miracles in the physical world that contravene the laws of nature.
2. Gods may have absolute control over one or more aspects of natural reality (sea, wind, love, war, weather, volcanoes, etc.)
3. Gods are considered socially "above" human beings socially and expect to be obeyed by humans.
4. Gods can be disembodied or embodied spirits.
5. Gods can communicate, interact, and form relationships with human beings.
6. Gods may be predisposed to grant favors for human beings or groups of beings, especially when worshipped, offered sacrifices, and prayed to.
7. Gods have comprehensive knowledge of reality.
8. Gods are immortal and omnipotent.
9. Gods can have emotions such as anger, sympathy, love.
10. Gods are beyond human understanding or comprehension.
11. Gods are thought to embody perfection in all their attributes.

Basically a magic sky daddy/mummy.

 

[PureX]

If your position is beliefs affect behavior, the member of the set labeled 'gods' is a set of myth beliefs, and believing in those god myths affect the believers behavior, then I'm fine with that. No argument from me there.

The point is that what happens in the mind (not just in the brain) is 'real'. As real as anything we can label real. Perception is conception. "Reality" is a concept happening in the mind.

The word 'real' in your phrase "just as 'real'" has it in single quotes for a reason. That beloved blurring of distinctions you so often employ. The newspaper drawing of Donald Trump and our abstract thoughts of Donald Trump are what they are, and are definitely not the living, breathing version of Donald Trump nor a duplicate living, breathing Donald Trump. They are not real in the same way.

They are "real in the same way". They are not, however, the same things. The problem here is that our poor use of language perpetuates a deluded understanding of reality.

It is more than appropriate to distinguish between the way abstract fictional constructs are real, from the way abstract constructs that represent physically existing things outside the mind are real, and the way things that exist in reality independent of anyone's thoughts are real. For one thing, existent things independent of minds are bound by physical laws, abstractions are not.

The problem here is that we are generating degrees of existence so as to support a bias in favor of material existence, instead of recognizing degrees of abstract conceptualization. Which is what we're really encountering and discussing.

 

[RestlessSoul]

But not out of the blue.
The DATA gave rise to the need for something other then what was being observed. There is more gravity then the observed mass can account for. Therefor we have an excess of gravity that needs to be accounted for. Dark matter is the label for the thing, whatever it is, that accounts for that excess gravity.

So dark matter is not something that was just invented out of the blue, like your statement seems to be insinuating.
No. Instead, it's very well motivated. The need for this label doesn't come from the physicist who wants to believe... It comes from the data itself. The data required a source of gravity.

That is what dark matter is today: the thing that accounts for the excess gravity that observed matter can't account for.

That's it. To compare that to a god concept, pretty much any god concept, is an obvious false equivalence imo.




Ever scientist has personal beliefs. Don't confuse what he wrote in his commercial books with his work in scientific literature / paper publications.

What makes you think God is something that was invented out of the blue?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Seems pretty clear to me that we are talking about the psychosomatic effects of belief. The entity itself is not important, it is the attitudes about the imagined entity that can have both positive or negative effects depending on those attitudes. This is about the placebo effect of positive thinking, which is great, but still leaves the question of whether other positive thinking beliefs or techniques also produce these same health-related benefits described. I am not going to dig deep and examine the quality of the studies, see what controls were used, how double-blind protocols were achieved, whether findings were corroborated by other groups or whether other types of thought techniques were tested, or whether polytheistic and animistic beliefs were also tested, etc.

Is psychosoma or its effects fiction?

While gods might be fiction to you, to the believer, they are not. They and their effects are quite real. This is why it's an affront to the believer to dismiss that which is a very real part of their lives. This is the point of this thread. It's important for an atheist to understand exactly what they're dismissing. Not all gods share the qualities of the God of Abraham.

I would also note that Dr. Newberg seems to have an Abrahamic take on the label 'God'.

Indeed, but looking through a less partial lens, or from an atheistic or dharmic one, one can separate the Abrahamic leanings understand the key points of what is being said.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Things I don't know about, haven't been presented to me. So there's nothing there for me to accept or reject.
As for all the gods that have been presented to me, in fact - the general definition of what a god is, tells me the property of "magic" is always present in one form or another.

I haven't yet been presented with one that hasn't.

I know of no gods that don't require such properties one way or the other.

Then before you dismiss all gods, you might want to learn more about gods of other paradigms, because your keyhole is quite small.

 

[SalixIncendium]

It is indeed a good example.

Dark matter wasn't just invented out of the air.
We know there is something there because we can measure the gravity it exerts.
So it has the same properties as matter. Yet we don't see it, so it doesn't reflect or emit, light. Hence "dark".

So "dark matter", while we do not know exactly what it is, is just a label we use to refer to a very detectable, very real, very measureable phenomenon in the commonly observable universe.

In contrast with gods... believers commonly claim to know very well what those gods are. Yet, there is nothing in the commonly observable universe which allows for similar detectability whatsoever. So it's the exact opposite...

The thing that the label "dark matter" refers to, is thus very demonstrably real, very detectable, very measureable in commonly observed reality.
Not so much for gods and their angelic or similar helpers

All of this is irrelevant unless you are saying that dark matter was demonstrable, detectable, and measurable around 1900, or unless you're saying that science is finished discovering and explaining things. The hard problem of consciousness and understanding dark matter make it clear that it's not. And these are things science is looking for/into. Is science looking for gods? Was science looking for dark matter before 1900?

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do Gods do? They are the figurehead(s) of the belief system, the narrative. The official representatives, the anthropomorphic reflections of human ignorance.

Good. You can respond to titles. That's not the exercise in the thread.

But given your satirical post previous to this one, I'm concluding you're not interested in participating. Rather you're only here to promote an agenda. And you've reinforced this with this post.

Basically a magic sky daddy/mummy.