The Paradox of Atheism and God

[Bthoth]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God, but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God? What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with.

Some people may say that atheists are doomed to hell for not following the Bible, but what is hell? Is it a literal place of fire and torment, or is it a metaphor for the suffering and despair that we create for ourselves and others? Is hell something that God imposes on us, or something that we impose on ourselves? Is hell eternal, or can it be overcome?

Perhaps hell is just especially real if one makes it a fear of theirs and a mental reality. Perhaps hell is the result of ignorance, hatred, and violence. Perhaps hell is the absence of love, compassion, and peace. Perhaps hell is not something that awaits us after death, but something that we experience in life.

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God. By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. By seeking truth and knowledge through reason and evidence, atheists "may" potentially be able to glimpse the divine order and beauty of the universe. By living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God. In my opinion.

Maybe God does not care about what we believe, but about what we do. Maybe God does not want us to worship him, but to respect him. Maybe God does not demand our obedience, but our freedom.

Maybe atheism is not fully the rejection of God, but may end up one of many paths to the discovery of God.

A person could believe in god and still be called an atheist by the religiously prejudice

 

[Trailblazer]

I disagree. We have no evidence that there is more than nature, and that is reason enough to live life as if that were how it is. What is true is that there is no reason to believe that there is more than nature. It's also a vague idea - the supernatural. What is it that is claimed to exist and if it exists, whatever the answer, why call it anything other than another aspect of nature?

If by nature you mean this material world, there is no reason for YOU to believe that anything exists outside this material world, but there is a reason for ME to believe that since my religion teaches that there is a spiritual world. It also teaches that there is no way we can know what the world beyond this world will be like, not any more than a baby who is still inside the womb world can know what this material world will be like. The baby will not know until he is born. Likewise we will not know what the spiritual world is like until we die and enter it.

I say that's exactly what it means. That describes the sun. It is causally connected to life on earth via the heat and warmth it provides and the gravity that holds us in orbit around it. Those are causes and effects, they are detectable, and we would have any reason to say that they aren't natural or part of nature.

The sun is part of creation and has effects on other parts of creation. The sun is detectable since we can study its causes and effects.
God is the creator, but not part of creation. Is a painter part of his painting?

If a god exists somewhere out there and it is still causally connected to earth such that it can affect human life, then it is also detectable through those effects, and we would have no reason to say that it isn't an aspect of nature.

Even if God is affecting the earth and human life, that does not mean that we can detect the effects God is having.
The key point here is that God chooses not to be detectable and that is why we will never be able to detect God.

The deist god, by contrast, has left the building. It is causally disconnected from nature, which is understood to run automatically and without intelligent supervision.

As I have told you in the past, I don't think there is a big difference between the deist God and the God I believe in as a Baha'i. I do not believe in an interventionist God that gets involved in the world or the affairs of humans other than communicating to a Messenger every 1000 years or so. That God has not left the building since He maintains and rules all of creation from His own high place, but He cannot be detected.

I do. It pretty much defines the empiricist epistemology.

If you need to detect the unknowable being called God in order to believe that He exists then you will never believe in God.
God can only be detected through His Messengers who come and go and leave footprints in the snow.

I presume that you mean the life and writings of the messenger. I disagree that either support a god belief, but let's stipulate to that - that the words of Baha'u'llah could not have been written by a human being or even channeled to him by advanced extraterrestrials, but suggest something more than that. Even then, that is evidence of something real known by its impact on human life and demonstrates a god that is causally connected to our reality and thus a part of it.

The Messenger is evidence of something real known by its impact on human life and demonstrates a God that is causally connected to our reality, but that does not mean that God is part of our reality.

As man keeps learning that reality is more vast than he could originally have suspected, new realms have opened up to us with new behaviors and phenomena, as with other galaxies with their supermassive black holes that trap light with their gravity. We didn't call this outside nature. We expanded our scale and qualities for nature. These were understood to be previously unseen aspects of nature, not something outside of or greater than nature.

That's true. All of creation is part of nature, whether we have discovered it or not.

And if we find a god out there somewhere, it will be added to the inventory of thing that nature contains, all causally connected to one another in space and time and affecting one another. That's what causally connected means, and it means that whatever is causally connected to any part of reality is another part of it making it both natural and detectable.

Nobody will ever 'find God' out there somewhere since God is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence. I cannot say what will happen when we enter the spiritual realm of existence since nobody knows.

Baháʼís view God as the being responsible for the creation of all that exists. The teachings state there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable.​

God in the Baháʼí Faith - Wikipedia​

God is not causally connected to what happens on earth since God is not 'causing' anything to happen. Natural processes occur without God's intervention and everything else that happens is caused by human free will decisions and the resulting actions.

So then you agree that my life would not be improved by my discovering the god you believe exists but I don't? Others recommend I search for this god, but I can't see why I should even if it exists, and your answer suggests that my view is appropriate.

Are you familiar with the term apatheism? "Apatheism is the attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence of God(s). It is more of an attitude rather than a belief, claim, or belief system."

I think your life might be improved if you discovered God on your own and really believed in Him. However, you would have to recognize the evidence that God has provided, and that would require a big shift in your way of thinking.

Yes, I am aware of apatheism. Do you have an attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence of God(s)? If you do, I cannot see how you would be motivated to search for evidence of God.

Why? You just finished writing that I would not be rewarded by finding God, now you say that belief is a good thing even if the beliefs aren't correct.

Sorry for my miscommunication. I think that you would be rewarded by starting to see what I call evidence for God as evidence for God, but what I was saying before is that you either see it as evidence or you do not.

When I said it might be better to have some false beliefs about God than to reject God altogether I was thinking of some religions who hold what 'I consider' false beliefs about God, e.g., that God is a trinity. The fact that some Christians believe that does not prevent them from being close to God in their hearts, which is what matters most. Of course it is better to hold true beliefs about God but it is not a deal-breaker.

I seek truth for the purpose of attaining happiness. A truth that cannot positively impact life knowing it has no value.

I seek truth for truth's sake, not for the purpose of making me happy.
I don't know what you mean by: "A truth that cannot positively impact life knowing it has no value."

So, if a religious truth helped you attain more happiness than you have now would you be interested in it?

Incidentally, "comfort" (happiness) to me is a living a relatively stress- and regret-free life in a beautiful, peaceful place with love, leisure, relatively good health, and satisfying things to do. Isn't that the vision of paradise most or all of humanity seeks, some in an imagined afterlife if they haven't found it on earth?

What you are describing is physical happiness. That is what comfort is. Yes, that is what most of humanity seeks, rather than spiritual happiness.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be comfortable and have physical happiness, but that is not something that can be counted upon and it is not available to everyone. You and I were just lucky in that regard to have our health and enough wealth to live comfortably, not everyone is so lucky. I am not saying there was no planning involved sine there was planning on both our parts, I am just saying that life does not always go as planned. Anyone's life situation can turn on a dime such as me suddenly losing my husband.

My point is that this physical life is not something that can be depended upon for happiness. As long as we live in a physical world with a physical body we are subject to pain and loss. Only after we enter the spiritual world will this no longer exist, since there is nothing physical there.

Knowledge (truth) is that set of ideas that facilitate creating and maintaining such a life.

I don't know what kind of knowledge (truth) you are referring to.

And doesn't that describe you as well? Aren't you trying to arrange your life so that it is maximally satisfying, however you understand that? Aren't you also trying to optimize love, beauty, and purpose in your life while minimizing annoyances and assorted unpleasant feelings and experiences? In my estimation, that's where knowledge (truth, or correct ideas) has value, and nowhere else.

No, that is not how I am trying to arrange my life. I don't usually think about my own personal happiness. Fulfilling my purpose in life supersedes my personal happiness. I am not looking for love, but I do appreciate the beauty of nature and animals.

I have no plans. I have no idea where my life is going, I just live one day at a time. My life had been in chaos for many years, long before the demise of my husband. I have less chaos now but I just consider that a stroke of luck, or fate, and that could turn on a dime. Yes, I do try to minimize annoyances and assorted unpleasant feelings, and one way I do that is to keep life as simple as possible. That can be kind of boring but I'd rather be bored than stressed.

 

[PureX]

And both lead right back to "belief".
and round and round they go.....

What we believe to be so and what we can actually know to be so are two different things. A distinction that most people refuse to recognize. So nearly every conversation around here ends up being about what people believe to be so regarding the nature and existence of God, as if it's something they know to be so. Whereas, when we ask the question more precisely, and ask about what we know, and how we know it, vs what we believe and why we believe it, we can get at a far more accurate understanding of the issue.

 

[McBell]

What we believe to be so and what we can actually know to be so are two different things. A distinction that most people refuse to recognize. So nearly every conversation around here ends up being about what people believe to be so regarding the nature and existence of God, as if it's something they know to be so. Whereas, when we ask the question more precisely, and ask about what we know, and how we know it, vs what we believe and why we believe it, we can get at a far more accurate understanding of the issue.

Only if both side are willing to try.
My experience has been that that seldom happens.

 

[PureX]

Only if both side are willing to try.
My experience has been that that seldom happens.

Yes, the atheist's 'kangaroo court' position requires that the issue be all about the assertion of theism as a religious belief, and they do tend to fight tooth and nail to hold onto it. While religious theists constantly claim to "know God" because they have been falsely taught by their religions that faith is pretending to know what they cannot possibly know. So both sides are invested in maintaining theism as a belief, and ignoring the question of God's nature or existence as a fact. I agree.

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, the atheist's 'kangaroo court' position requires that the issue be all about the assertion of theism as a religious belief, and they do tend to fight tooth and nail to hold onto it. While religious theists constantly claim to "know God" because they have been falsely taught by their religions that faith is pretending to know what they cannot possibly know. So both sides are invested in maintaining theism as a belief, and ignoring the question of God's nature or existence as a fact. I agree.

You sound like the brilliant Catholic Scholar Jean-Luc Marion:

What disqualifies the attempts of theoretical atheism is found not in the weakness of their arguments, but in the senseless ambition that arguments, whatever their form, might grasp what is at issue when the issue is God. Theoretical atheism believes, with a rather irrational belief, that we could have done with the hypothesis of God through concepts, when in fact through such concepts we are by definition unable even to get that far. If God is the issue, the issue is never one of demonstrating his existence (and still less his non-existence), because his (possible) essence remains, and must remain, inaccessible to us. If one believes he understands God, it isn’t God: this rule remains inviolable.​

​

Marion, Jean-Luc Marion. Givenness and Revelation (p. 116). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.​

In Marion's logic, atheism seems like it would be more correct than theism so long as it states that it doesn't believe in God or disbelieve in God since for them the question itself is pointless. To say the question of God is pointless seems correct if we can't demonstrate his existence or non-existence?

There appears to be at least three fundamental stances on the issue:

1. The question of God is pointless since God can't be demonstrated to exist. Atheism/agnosticism.

2. God's existence is a given even though it's pointless to try proving it since it can't be proven. Jewish monotheism.

3. God's existence is historical, real, tangible, in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Christianity.

Point one seems sound. In point two, one could question the nature of Jewish belief in God since they concede nothing in creation is God, nor is a direct and undeniable mediation of God (ala Jesus Christ), since something in a true mediation would have to be part and parcel of God for the mediation to be authoritative (this very point was just argued in the thread Midrash in a Simulacum).

The Christian stance seems the most problematic of the three since Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure, a real man, in one sense, but is posited to be God, in a tangible form, in the other. If the latter be the case (Jesus is God) then Jean-Luc Marion's statement seems not to be correct if Jesus' existence proves God's existence? I think where Marion would go with this (and probably does in the quoted text) is the idea that the "revelation" of God in the person of Jesus Christ is a different phenomenon than normal, natural, rational and reasonable thought. The question then being, what kind of thought, or phenomenon, is "revelation," and does it, or how does it, transcend atheism and Judaism, in the "revelation" of Jesus Christ, without cheating or breaking the rules of the game?



John

 

[PureX]

To me, it's the position of atheism itself that proves the validity of theism. Atheism has based it's position (that no gods exist) on the assertion that the nature and existence of God/gods has not and cannot be proven to be a material fact. And yet it is exactly this assertion that allows the nature and existence of God/gods to remain a valid possibility. And it's a possibility that people can use to great advantage as they negotiate living in a harsh material world. Atheists can never seem to grasp this (the power of faith) precisely because they have rejected the possibility based on nothing but blind pessimism.

 

[viole]

To me, it's the position of atheism itself that proves the validity of theism. Atheism has based it's position (that no gods exist) on the assertion that the nature and existence of God/gods has not and cannot be proven to be a material fact. And yet it is exactly this assertion that allows the nature and existence of God/gods to remain a valid possibility. And it's a possibility that people can use to great advantage as they negotiate living in a harsh material world. Atheists can never seem to grasp this (the power of faith) precisely because they have rejected the possibility based on nothing but blind pessimism.

What's pessimistic about that? I actually think it would be good news if there were no God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

Some people may think that atheism is the rejection of God, but what if atheism could actually incidentally end up the path to God? What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with.

Some people may say that atheists are doomed to hell for not following the Bible, but what is hell? Is it a literal place of fire and torment, or is it a metaphor for the suffering and despair that we create for ourselves and others? Is hell something that God imposes on us, or something that we impose on ourselves? Is hell eternal, or can it be overcome?

Perhaps hell is just especially real if one makes it a fear of theirs and a mental reality. Perhaps hell is the result of ignorance, hatred, and violence. Perhaps hell is the absence of love, compassion, and peace. Perhaps hell is not something that awaits us after death, but something that we experience in life.

If that is the case, then atheism may very well be the path to God. By rejecting the false and harmful notions of God that are propagated by some religions, atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. By seeking truth and knowledge through reason and evidence, atheists "may" potentially be able to glimpse the divine order and beauty of the universe. By living morally and ethically without fear or coercion, atheists may be able to express the love and kindness that are the essence of God. In my opinion.

Maybe God does not care about what we believe, but about what we do. Maybe God does not want us to worship him, but to respect him. Maybe God does not demand our obedience, but our freedom.

Maybe atheism is not fully the rejection of God, but may end up one of many paths to the discovery of God.

There is something to that, but I don't know that there is any good reason to keep using the word "god" there.

 

[PureX]

What's pessimistic about that? I actually think it would be good news if there were no God.

Ciao

- viole

But that assessment is based entirely on a concept of God that you are choosing to hold onto, and then reject. You could have chosen any other concept of God, and used it to positive effect in your life.

God is an open possibility both in terms of it's existence and nature. YOU chose the God that you then rejected.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. cannot be proven to be a material fact. Atheists can never seem to grasp this (the power of faith) precisely because they have rejected the possibility based on nothing but blind pessimism.

That is a theist assertation. Atheists are open about it. Show us the evidence and we will accept God.
We do not need faith, we are very happy without it. Why do you think that we will be pessimistic?

.. atheists may be closer to the true nature of God than those who blindly follow them. Perhaps hell is the absence of love, compassion, and peace. Perhaps hell is not something that awaits us after death ..
Maybe atheism is not fully the rejection of God, but may end up one of many paths to the discovery of God.

If we do not believe in God, then the 'true nature of God' is meaningless to us.
I understand that you are a poet philosopher, but all that love, compassion and peace can land us in trouble.
What awaits us after death is a 6' x 3' piece of land or a pile of firewood.
You are, dear friend, making basic mistakes. No God, no paths to God.

 

[viole]

But that assessment is based entirely on a concept of God that you are choosing to hold onto, and then reject. You could have chosen any other concept of God, and used it to positive effect in your life.

God is an open possibility both in terms of it's existence and nature. YOU chose the God that you then rejected.

It seems to me that you are not advertising the existence of God, but the beneficial effects that belief can have, once we have chosen one or more gods that fit our wishes.

I don't object to that. In fact, I think that our innate predisposition to believe in gods, so that we can positively negotiate our life in a harsh world, as you say, is a natural adaptation that helped survival of our species. A natural propensity towards useful delusions, so to speak.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

To me, it's the position of atheism itself that proves the validity of theism.

That's like saying....
The existence of vaccines proves the validity of Covid 19.
The existence of hammers proves the validity of nails.
The existence of brooms proves the validity of dirt.
The existence of police proves the validity of crime.
And finally....
The existence of criminal courts proves the validity of Trump.

 

[PureX]

It seems to me that you are not advertising the existence of God, but the beneficial effects that belief can have, once we have chosen one or more gods that fit our wishes.

It's all we get. As a human being cannot verify the nature or existence of "God" by most people's concept of God. So to us, God is an ongoing and openly defined possibility. To demand verification is just nonsensical, as we couldn't recognize it even if we have it.

I don't object to that. In fact, I think that our innate predisposition to believe in gods, so that we can positively negotiate our life in a harsh world, as you say, is a natural adaptation that helped survival of our species. A natural propensity towards useful delusions, so to speak.

Why are you calling it a "delusion" when God is exactly as likely to exist, exactly as we choose to imagine, as not? To call it a delusion would mean we'd have to know that God does not exist as we choose to hope. And there is no way to know that. Not to mention that it's denigrating and insulting to those who choose to trust that their idea of God is true.

 

[PureX]

That's like saying....
The existence of vaccines proves the validity of Covid 19.
The existence of hammers proves the validity of nails.
The existence of brooms proves the validity of dirt.
The existence of police proves the validity of crime.
And finally....
The existence of criminal courts proves the validity of Trump.

The fact that we cannot prove God exists within our limited capacity for doing that, also means we cannot prove that God does not exist. And that means the possibility of God existing exactly as we imagine, remains open. And therefor so does the effect that possibility can have on us.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact that we cannot prove God exists within our limited capacity for doing that, also means we cannot prove that God does not exist.

I don't have to prove something doesn't exist
to not believe in it.

And that means the possibility of God existing exactly as we imagine, remains open. And therefor so does the effect that possibility can have on us.

While it's possible that your God exists, it's
still reasonable to say that it doesn't.

Tis the same for a pink teapot made of
chocolate orbiting Uranus....I admit that it's
logically impossible to prove there isn't one.
But it's a loopy idea. Look at all the various
conceptions of God, Allah, Cthulhu. They're
just as loopy.

 

[PureX]

I don't have to prove something doesn't exist
to not believe in it.

Nor to believe in it. And if such material proof is not going to be available (as you demand) then the possibility stands as valid.

While it's possible that your God exists, it's
still reasonable to say that it doesn't.

It's actually more reasonable to trust in a God of your choice if the results of doing so are better for you then choosing not to. And since choosing not to brings no effective results at all, the positive results of choosing faith are the far more likely, and therefor more reasonable.

 

[viole]

Why are you calling it a "delusion" when God is exactly as likely to exist, exactly as we choose to imagine, as not? To call it a delusion would mean we'd have to know that God does not exist as we choose to hope. And there is no way to know that. Not to mention that it's denigrating and insulting to those who choose to trust that their idea of God is true.

Well, this is just what logic tells us.

The problem, of course, is that people believe, and believed, in mutually contradicting Gods. If 10 persons believe in 10 different Gods, then it is the case that 90% of them, at least, are deluded. For the simple reason that it cannot be the case that more than one of those Gods are true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

Nor to believe in it. And if such material proof is not going to be available (as you demand) then the possibility stands as valid.

I don't demand proof of gods.
(I know that none would be forthcoming.)

It's actually more reasonable to trust in a God of your choice if the results of doing so are better for you then choosing not to.

It's like believing in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, & fiscally responsible Democrats.
But take belief in loopy things too far, & you risk harm to self & others.

And since choosing not to brings no effective results at all, the positive results of choosing faith are the far more likely, and therefor more reasonable.

I prefer not believing that honor killings, energy healing,
crusades, requiring women to be shrouded head to toe,
& other evils are good for people.

 

[PureX]

Well, this is just what logic tells us.

No, it really isn't what logic tells us. It's what your illogical bias tells you. Logic tells us that God is exactly as likely to exist as we choose to hope, as not. And that none of us can know either way.

The problem, of course, is that people believe, and believed, in mutually contradicting Gods.

Of course we do. None of us can know if or what kind of God exists. ANY version is equally possible. So everyone is free to envision God as they choose. And so we do. Hopefully based on the positive effect we gain from placing faith in our particular God-concept.

If 10 persons believe in 10 different Gods, then it is the case that 90% of them, at least, are deluded. For the simple reason that it cannot be the case that more than one of those Gods are true.

Ciao

- viole

There is no "right" God-concept. There is just the one we choose for ourselves, and the results of our trusting in it. As it has long been established that no human can verify the nature or existence of any God.