Atheists: What Do Gods Do?

[SalixIncendium]

OK, who is atheist? Basically anyone not complying to abrahamic beliefs?

What about people that are realizing that god itself is nature (existence itself)? Does that make a person 'less than'?

Of his dust, eating of his body, living within his body and must maintain personal responsibility or committing a sin to him, directly.

I'm not sure if you're not understanding what is being asked in the OP or I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't appear to be related to what the OP is asking.

 

[Bthoth]

I'm not sure if you're not understanding what is being asked in the OP or I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't appear to be related to what the OP is asking.

That's possible.

 

[MikeF]

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.

Again, you are being disingenuous as evidenced by your use of single and double quotes. To start, I do not make the distinction between mind and brain as you seem to do here. As to real, we can and must distinguish between what is objectively real and an *individual's* subjective perception of real, which may or may not sufficiently correspond to objectively real. In other words, there is a real world outside of brains and it's thoughts, and due to a variety of factors, such as the abstract nature of thought, the unique neuronal arrangement of nerves in each CNS, the impact or effect of injury, illness, disease, and malformation of the CNS, there can be loss of correspondence between the observed objective real world and the abstract subjective picture created during CNS processing of both current sense data and stored information.

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.

Our? Hmmm, I have certainly pointed out several instances where I felt your intentional poor use of language was employed to specifically form a deluded understanding of reality. Not sure how to arbitrate our differences here. Simply agree to disagree I suppose.

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.

It is certainly not bias to accept the world, reality, as it is. It would be exercising bias not to. I see the problem as formed from two separate issues, first is understanding objective reality, second, how do we live in the reality to which we are born. The problem seems to be coming to agreement on how closely there should be correspondence with the first case in what we come up with for the second case.

 

[MikeF]

It was addressed in the subsequent post (#24). I'm sorry you don't think that response was adequate.

We've strayed from the original thread topic, and have gone back and forth on a side-track that really hasn't accomplished anything, which began with your calling gods a fiction. I think doing so is an affront to theists, and I don't think we are going to find a common ground here on the matter.

Thank you for the discussion.

You bet. Thank you as well. I enjoyed it.

 

[MikeF]

There is a lot of consensus. And there are also a lot of significant differences. As is the case with all human conceptions of reality.

Elvis, for example. There are a lot of things we would all agree on about him, but there are also a lot of things that we would not agree on about him. And none of us could honestly claim to know the whole truth of Elvis. Not even those who interacted with him personally.

There is plenty of "Elvis evidence" we could look at and use to create a conception of him in our minds. But we won't all have access to the same evidence, and we won't all read the evidence in the same way, so we won't all formulate the same conceptual conclusions. And the idea what we would, or should, is completely unreasonable.

And yet I see this "no consensus" argument being posed all the time against anyone that dares to offer their own theistic conception of God.

Not a good example in my opinion. The problem is the same proper noun label 'God' is applied to a broad and extensive number of definitions. I suggest dropping use of the proper noun 'God' and using proper names as was standard in the past, names like Marduk, El, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl.

 

[Little Dragon]

Understanding of gods in general is different among different religions, many of which are poorly-characterized as being "faiths" to begin with (that is, they are not about what is "believed"). Polytheism on the whole is a lot more about cultivating relationships with the gods, lived experience, and practice. What is "believed" about the gods isn't what matters. So polytheists will approach the nature of the gods in different ways.

But one thing that is important to understand is that the gods of indigenous and polytheistic traditions were an expression of the relationships humanity has with powers greater than themselves. These are not gods that are separate from nature and the universe and reality itself, they are the forces of nature and the universe and reality itself. This is how most religion worked until Abrahamic religions came along and tore the divine out of nature and the universe. This eviction of the divine from nature was reinforced further in Western culture by The Enlightenment and related movements. It's a story that is better told by the scholars that have recounted it than I - I recently finished Armstrong's "Sacred Nature" which was a fair enough (if simplistic) telling of the tale.

I still kinda remember that moment in my journey where I finally got it into my skull that gods could be nature (and were nature for the majority of human history). It flew in the face of what I grew up with in an Abrahamic household where I was constantly told god is not nature and the creation is not creator and god is supernatural and blah, blah, blah. No. No, that's the Abrahamic way of looking at things. It's not the only way. And humanity has found sacred connections and meaning in nature for a very, very long time. It was coming home.

Ah, I think you articulated that quite well. Ok, I think I understand better. I must say, that sounds considerably more reasonable.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is a lot of consensus. And there are also a lot of significant differences. As is the case with all human conceptions of reality.

If you are not willing to acknowledge how mismatched and disjointed the various conceptions of "deity" are, I don't think we have a lot to talk to each other about this subject matter.

(...)

And yet I see this "no consensus" argument being posed all the time against anyone that dares to offer their own theistic conception of God.

Is that so? Really?

I for one do not mind anyone having their own conceptions. But they better not expect me to support those as a matter of course.

Is that too much?

 

[MikeF]

In this case, that the word is meaningless in and of itself. All kinds of expectations of what a "god" must be, should be, should not be and cannot possibly be exist. There is no consensus and it is pointless to expect any to ever arise.

I don't find it meaningless as a category label for a set of purely analytic abstract concepts. I certainly agree with your position here in regards to the proper noun 'God' and have recommended the label be retired and substitute its use with proper name labels instead.

The problem I have is that believers want to claim that their abstract construct of an entity is actually synthetic to objective reality and therefore does not belong in the set of analytic constructs labeled 'gods'. If presenting their entity as synthetic to reality, I would ask how synthetic correspondence to objective reality is established, as I did in the post you were responding to.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't find it meaningless as a category label for a set of purely analytic abstract concepts. I certainly agree with your position here in regards to the proper noun 'God' and have recommended the label be retired and substitute its use with proper name labels instead.

The problem I have is that believers want to claim that their abstract construct of an entity is actually synthetic to objective reality and therefore does not belong in the set of analytic constructs labeled 'gods'. If presenting their entity as synthetic to reality, I would ask how synthetic correspondence to objective reality is established, as I did in the post you were responding to.

Not really following, although you seem to be careful enough.

Myself, I think that attempts at categorizing people rigidly as either "theists/believers" or "non-theists" ends up being misleading and leads to the need to point out how difficult it is to make the term actuallly relevant.

 

[PureX]

Again, you are being disingenuous as evidenced by your use of single and double quotes. To start, I do not make the distinction between mind and brain as you seem to do here.

I am not responsible for the distinctions that you choose not to make. The brain is the biological mechanism that produces cognition. The mind is the cognitive phenomenon that we experience as a result. They are not the same things, so I make distinctions between them.

As to real, we can and must distinguish between what is objectively real and an *individual's* subjective perception of real, which may or may not sufficiently correspond to objectively real.

We have no access to what is "obectively real" except through our subjective perception/conception of it. So your demand, here is not rational.

In other words, there is a real world outside of brains and it's thoughts, ...

But we have no access to it by any means other than via our brain and it's thoughts (the mind).

... and due to a variety of factors, such as the abstract nature of thought, the unique neuronal arrangement of nerves in each CNS, the impact or effect of injury, illness, disease, and malformation of the CNS, there can be loss of correspondence between the observed objective real world and the abstract subjective picture created during CNS processing of both current sense data and stored information.

The loss of correspondence is innate. Because perception is conception.

It is certainly not bias to accept the world, reality, as it is.

Of course it is. Because "reality as it is" is a conceptual construct being created in our minds. And we know that it's not entirely accurate even though we don't know how or by how much it's wrong. So we as we hold onto this concept, we are holding to a bias.

I see the problem as formed from two separate issues, first is understanding objective reality, second, how do we live in the reality to which we are born.

We ARE understanding objective reality. Unfortunately for us, that "understanding" is imaginary. And is therefor inaccurate. But it's all we have to go on, so we have to go with it, but remain skeptical at all times about everything we think we understand.

The problem seems to be coming to agreement on how closely there should be correspondence with the first case in what we come up with for the second case.

There is no way for us to know how accurate our conception of objective reality is compared to objective reality. So we end up relying on trial and error: i.e., functionality, to determine this for us. But function depends on intent, and desire, and pre-conception, and so on, so it, too, is a very biased criteria. Nevertheless, most of us accept it in lieu of the truth.

Unfortunately, many of us also fall into the habit of confusing and conflating the two.

 

[PureX]

If you are not willing to acknowledge how mismatched and disjointed the various conceptions of "deity" are, I don't think we have a lot to talk to each other about this subject matter.

The same is true if you are not willing to accept that there is a lot of commonality in the many human conceptions of God.

 

[John53]

This thread is inspired by some of the responses I'm reading in Atheists: What would the universe look like if a god existed?.

For this thread, I am intentionally excluding the God of Abraham to get some sort of an idea as to the level of knowledge atheists have about gods beyond the Abrahamic paradigm.

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'm not even challenging atheists to tell me what they lack belief in that particular god...just wanting to see what they know about them.

Are any atheists up to this challenge?

I choose Baiame. He is the creator God of the Worimi people who are the traditional owners of the area where I live. Not a lot is known about him because of the appalling treatment of Aboriginals by us Europeans and the early Christian missionaries tried to hijack him as the Christian God. I tried doing some research about 20 years ago but it was difficult because a lot of the knowledge is lost and/or only passed onto initiated men of the various tribes that have Baiame belief.

The basic story is that he came from the spirit world and created the land, rivers, mountains, swamps, forests. He gave laws and songs to the people then launched back into the spirit world where he lives with his two wives. That's about the sum total of my knowledge. I could drive you to see the mountain he launched back into the spirit world from, it has a flattened top he created when he jumped. There's also a cave painting a couple of hours from where I live that is believed to be Baiame.

 

[MikeF]

Not really following, although you seem to be careful enough.

I guess I'm saying if someone wants to present their entity as the real McCoy, I simply ask they show their work.

Myself, I think that attempts at categorizing people rigidly as either "theists/believers" or "non-theists" ends up being misleading and leads to the need to point out how difficult it is to make the term actuallly relevant.

Categories can be useful. Generalities can be an adequate statistical representation of an observed case. Can other details be lost, or can we lose site of important information along the borders of two categories, certainly.

Perhaps it would have been better for me to use the singular. So instead of my saying, "that believers want to claim", I said, "when a believer in a specific entity wants to claim", thereby focusing on the specific case instead of a broad generalization. Or perhaps I am missing your point entirely.

 

[osgart]

I meant to reply to this earlier but got side-tracked.

Honestly, this post was genuinely refreshing to see. I fully expect atheists to view gods as imaginary and that fact doesn't bother me. I do wince a little when people equate imaginary with childish or unimportant though. As you say, our world is at least in part built on imagination.

I also think you're spot on in your assessment that many things can ultimately be given godlike status, even if the person in question doesn't view that thing as an actual deity.

Thankyou for the reply! Yeah i admit there are sophisticated god concepts.

It just makes sense that there are things that wield power in people's minds, and a lot of the time for some people these things are given supreme importance. That leads me to the question if these things wield power in people's minds what is the effect, the perceived benefit, and the costs of letting that be so in their minds? The motivation behind people's reasoning interests me, and i pay attention to what may be true about the reasoning, and what may be false, or unproveable. There's always a motivation for every reason. A person can be the most objective being alive, completely dispassionate, no bias whatsoever; a real fact machine, however there's a motivation that underlies that kind of thinking. Facts can and do have almighty importance, but there is the cost and willingness, and the worth of caring about people who ignore facts, or can't regard facts.

All my life i've met people who are highly motivated by the truth they perceive to be. Some of these truths are intolerant, and considered to be so obvious that only a fool would challenge or reject it. Some of these people with their god, had complete control over my life when i was young. Some of these people succeeded, and some met ultimate failure, and they still don't recognize it. So when i hear the word god i immediately wonder with caution what god is it? And who is really running the show in these people's lives.

 

[Alien826]

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.

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.

 

[Heyo]

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

No one I know believes in, worships or prays to Darth Vader.

Jediism - Wikipedia

 

[MikeF]

Because "reality as it is" is a conceptual construct being created in our minds. And we know that it's not entirely accurate even though we don't know how or by how much it's wrong. So we as we hold onto this concept, we are holding to a bias.

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

We ARE understanding objective reality. Unfortunately for us, that "understanding" is imaginary. And is therefor inaccurate. But it's all we have to go on, so we have to go with it, but remain skeptical at all times about everything we think we understand.

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

There is no way for us to know how accurate our conception of objective reality is compared to objective reality. So we end up relying on trial and error: i.e., functionality, to determine this for us. But function depends on intent, and desire, and pre-conception, and so on, so it, too, is a very biased criteria. Nevertheless, most of us accept it in lieu of the truth.

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. 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.

 

[LuisDantas]

The same is true if you are not willing to accept that there is a lot of commonality in the many human conceptions of God.

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

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess I'm saying if someone wants to present their entity as the real McCoy, I simply ask they show their work.

Fair enough. But what happens next?

If you stand unconvinced, then what?

With all due respect, I don't think that there are many people willing to reconsider their beliefs because they have not convinced you. Unless you happen to be some form of religious authority that the believer accepts as such, of course.

Categories can be useful. Generalities can be an adequate statistical representation of an observed case. Can other details be lost, or can we lose site of important information along the borders of two categories, certainly.

That is true enough of subjects of consensual reality.

Deities are simply not likely to be a part of that group. Often enough their reason for being includes either transcendence of those limitations or failure to be coherent enough to qualify.

Perhaps it would have been better for me to use the singular. So instead of my saying, "that believers want to claim", I said, "when a believer in a specific entity wants to claim", thereby focusing on the specific case instead of a broad generalization. Or perhaps I am missing your point entirely.

In all honesty and with all respect, I think that we are simply starting from dissimilar understandings of what deities are and what they are supposed to be, and neither of us has any significant motivation towards bridging that gap.

Mainly, I also suspect, because we do not use those concepts for very similar purposes.

I am interested in encouraging religious people to transcend god-beliefs entirely - not so that they become non-theists, but rather in the hope that they develop better, more solid and more constructive forms of religiosity.

At the end of the day, I just don't find the words "god" and "deity" worth of salvaging. Too much trouble, hardly any benefit.

I am not entirely sure of your own perspective, but it seems to have a lot more time and consideration for those two concepts than I am willing to give them.

In a nutshell, I think that it is well worth disregarding deities in order to understand and even protect the religious doctrines and practicioners when the need arises. You seem to hold the deities as much less questionable and much more solid and trustworthy concepts than I ever attempted to.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Indeed. Science does not have any real interest in protecting its concepts once they are demonstrated faulty. And it is all the better for it.

Religion may sometimes act similarly, but that is just not very frequent, for both fair and unfair reasons.