• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What makes a deity worthy of worship?

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, your comparison does not hold.

A hungry person needs to eat, otherwise she would die. A deity does not need to be worshipped because that would make it dependent on contingencies, against the premise of His perfection.

Now, why would a deity require worship? If He does, then there are good chances that He is not a deity to start with. And therefore not deserving of any worship.

Ciao

- viole

For some, the comparison does hold. The idea of that gods must be perfect is relatively unusual when it comes to various theologies, and there are some who believe that particular god(s) derive their power from those who honor them. I don't necessarily agree with these perspectives, but I have a hard time rationalizing calling something unworthy of worship because it is dependent on something. This is probably because I see everything as worthy of worship, and also because I recognize everything is interdependent.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
For some, the comparison does hold. The idea of that gods must be perfect is relatively unusual when it comes to various theologies, and there are some who believe that particular god(s) derive their power from those who honor them. I don't necessarily agree with these perspectives, but I have a hard time rationalizing calling something unworthy of worship because it is dependent on something. This is probably because I see everything as worthy of worship, and also because I recognize everything is interdependent.

Well yes. It depends on the view. I personally don't think it makes sense to worship anything.

Question. when you say that everything is worthy of worship, do you include the Ebola virus and the cellular degeneration in the body of little kids?

Ciao

- viole
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Question. when you say that everything is worthy of worship, do you include the Ebola virus and the cellular degeneration in the body of little kids?

Yes.

Everything is part of the Weave, everything is interdependent, and everything is sacred and worthy of worship regardless of whether or not I or other humans happen to like it or agree with it. Respect is due to everything. No exceptions. Put another way, I grant all things intrinsic value, regardless of the whimsical judgements of mere humans. Respectfulness is universal. I am not one to honor birth yet ignore the honor due to death; I am not one to honor peace yet ignore the honor due to war.


Do I actively worship either of these things (which is really the more important question)?

No.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
The first one :)

Just trying to maintain clarity, sorry. While we can never be 100% absolutely certain about what is real, hard solipsism is very difficult to totally disprove, we do seem to share experiences, generally, which allow us to compare notes about what is actually real. That makes a few assumptions about the reality of other individuals, our ability to accurately trade information, etc. and it also requires us to understand the limitations of our biology, but if we are real and we can understand a collective experience, then we can build up a network of shared understanding about what actually exists around us, at least within our ability to have experiences. As our technology increases our range, it also allows us to expand beyond our biology to experience more things collectively. It's not a perfect system, certainly, but it's what we have and so far, it has worked.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Just trying to maintain clarity, sorry.

No worries, it's really easy to lose track sometimes :)

While we can never be 100% absolutely certain about what is real, hard solipsism is very difficult to totally disprove, we do seem to share experiences, generally, which allow us to compare notes about what is actually real. That makes a few assumptions about the reality of other individuals, our ability to accurately trade information, etc. and it also requires us to understand the limitations of our biology, but if we are real and we can understand a collective experience, then we can build up a network of shared understanding about what actually exists around us, at least within our ability to have experiences. As our technology increases our range, it also allows us to expand beyond our biology to experience more things collectively. It's not a perfect system, certainly, but it's what we have and so far, it has worked.

I agree with you on the point about hard solipsism. It's probably not worth dwelling too much on that though or we'll never get anywhere ;)

I have some issues with the rest of what you posted though, particularly the part I highlighted. It seems to suggest that for something to be considered factually real, it must be experienced/confirmed by a group of people. As far as I can tell, such a system would allow for the existence of any number of gods since they fit this criteria.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
I agree with you on the point about hard solipsism. It's probably not worth dwelling too much on that though or we'll never get anywhere ;)

There are some assumptions that have to be made otherwise we're all left sitting around twiddling our thumbs. Im reality, there are no actual solipsists because they have to operate by the same assumptions as the rest of us. Anyone who really thought the world was an illusion wouldn't bother stopping for the non-existent cars on the road. Real solipsists, by definition, would be dead solipsists.

I have some issues with the rest of what you posted though, particularly the part I highlighted. It seems to suggest that for something to be considered factually real, it must be experienced/confirmed by a group of people. As far as I can tell, such a system would allow for the existence of any number of gods since they fit this criteria.

By relying on collectivism, it allows us to sort out things that are not representative. If we just relied on individuals, someone who was color blind, who had a defect that didn't allow them to see color, would assume that the world had no color in it, which we know isn't true. Individuals can be delusional, they can be insane, they can be impaired, they can have something wrong with them, but collectively, we edit those individuals out of the overall mix by identifying why their experiences are not reliable. The person with color blindness has something wrong with their eyes, just like the person who is nearsighted or farsighted. Without correction, they might assume that the world was just really blurry but that's not the case, it's a fault with their sensory apparatus.

The problem with the god claim that many people make is that it's a purely subjective claim. It isn't a lot of people having the same experience in the same place at the same time, it's lots of different people having lots of different experiences in different places at different times and under different conditions. They aren't even seeing God, something they could all give the same description of, they are having experiences and then subjectively attributing that experience to God. They cannot draw a direct causal link between God and the experience, there's no way to show that God was actually responsible for the experience, it's an emotional response to stimuli, caused by cultural conditioning. People in other cultures, having the same or similar experiences, attribute them to other causes that are conditioned in their particular cultures. People who do not believe in gods, who have not been conditioned to believe in gods, do not attribute gods as the causes of these experiences. Near death experiences, for example, are virtually always experienced within the cultural context of the experiencer. Christians who have them don't see Thor. Followers of Odin, back in the day, when they had them, they didn't see Jesus. We do understand and can replicate near death experiences and they are wholly natural, it's all part of the traumatic experience in the brain that causes some people to make these unwarranted attributions.

Most people who have these experiences don't think too deeply into them either, they rarely ever question what was actually responsible, they just take the first idea that leaps into their head and it is thereafter inseparable from the experience itself. We know that eyewitness testimony is generally unreliable, especially as time goes by. The brain tends to fill in the details with things that never really happened, thus reinforcing the belief that the experiencer wants to have had, things tend to get more fantastic as time goes on and those details are embellished. This isn't limited to religious experiences, it happens in all experiences. I saw a show a while back where a group of people were talked through a scene in a desert and immediately thereafter wrote down what happened. It was also documented on video. Several months later, those same people came back and wrote it down again, after having been suggested by the experimenters that they encountered an alien crash site and those stories now reflected things that absolutely never happened, such as men in black suits, aliens, spaceship wreckage, etc. The memory is an odd thing, we have to be careful to question what we think we see and hear and experience because we're not just recorders of the truth.

That's why, when you start to talk about reality, the objective thing that we all share, we have to be very careful what we accept as a true record of events and what we put aside as a potentially faulty account. The more independent people we can get involved in the same experience, at the same time, in the same place, under the same conditions, all of whom tell the same story consistently, the more reliable we can think the story is. That's just not how religious experiences operate though and that's why individual experiences with "gods" are just not valuable to anyone but the person who had the experience and frankly, they ought to be skeptical of them as well.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
Hi Cephus, sorry it took me a while to get back to you. That's quite a bulky post (and I suspect my reply might be similar) so rather than reply to it section by section I thought it might be better to go over some of the areas I agree or disagree on. If you feel I've missed something that was important to the post then do you mind highlighting it for me? I'll try to respond as soon as I'm able.

The variety and inconsistency of reports about gods certainly do make it hard to argue in favour of some god concepts. Deities which are simultaneously supernatural, objective and interventionist while also having a clear and consistent motive are (in my opinion) right out of the window. However, this does not apply to gods which are not supernatural, subjective or are themselves inconsistent. I suspect one of the issues we'll have in this discussion is that we have different ideas about what a deity can and can't be. What you've described seems to cover certain forms of monotheism and hard polytheism. While these are certainly common expressions of theism, they are by no means the only ones.
This is a very important point to consider when asking "what makes a god worthy of worship?" I'm sure you're aware that it's impossible to disprove every single god concept out there. As such, I don't think it's wise to take the non-existence approach when discussing such a topic. Even if you're absolutely 100% convinced that no god of any description could conceivably exist, surely you have to accept that the concepts of gods are potentially powerful things? To me it seems to make more sense to tackle the subject from that angle. Then again, you've already mentioned that you feel something real is intrinsically more valuable than something unreal. As a lover of fiction that's a stance I just can't embrace myself.

You're also right that our perceptions of the world around us are rife with flaws. Whether it be fading/false memory or outright hallucination, there are a number of reasons why we could (and perhaps should) doubt our own experiences. I do feel that there comes a point where this stops being useful though. Speaking personally, I'll happily accept that some of my experiences (those that could be construed as supernatural) could have been in my mind. I may never know the truth on that one, but I see no value in dismissing them. Firstly, because they've helped to shape the person I've become. Secondly, because I find it extremely problematic to dismiss what goes on in the mind as having no place in reality.

Your closing sentence really stood out to me:

That's just not how religious experiences operate though and that's why individual experiences with "gods" are just not valuable to anyone but the person who had the experience and frankly, they ought to be skeptical of them as well

I have a couple of issues with this. Firstly, you accept that such experiences are valuable to the individual while simultaneously rejecting them. This seems weirdly arbitrary to me. Why should you reject something that's valuable? I suspect the answer may lie in our very different views on the value of reality.
That brings me on to my second issue. This neatly summarises a recurring theme throughout your post - that it's important to determine a single, objective reality and that anything which falls outside this reality is flawed at best. Why is it important to determine what is universally true/untrue?
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
What makes a deity worthy of worship? Or not worthy of worship?
I'd start with a demonstrable existence. Granted that puts an ultimately non-interventionist deity at a distinct disadvantage, but then ... as a non-interventionist type, it really doesn't care.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
A deity must have lordly qualities. It must rule like a king and for the most part hold no regard for expectations. I know Muslims get flak for this concept but a deity who is worthy of worship should be to some extent cruel. If you say this deity is responsible for mankind's creation is is infinite and above all else and bla bla bla. This being by default is far superior and perfect and cannot be judged.
A worshipful deity is one you cannot judge or conceive. The issue though is that people try reducing such a mythical concept down to a more anthropomorphic level and render the deity relatable which also becomes self defeating.
A deity worthy of worship should be evident in but void of being conceived of or understood which also forms a bit of a paradox.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
Hi Cephus, sorry it took me a while to get back to you. That's quite a bulky post (and I suspect my reply might be similar) so rather than reply to it section by section I thought it might be better to go over
some of the areas I agree or disagree on. If you feel I've missed something that was important to the post then do you mind
highlighting it for me? I'll try to respond as soon as I'm able.

No worries, things take as long as they take. I'm lucky to have a bit of free time right now, if this had been a couple of weeks
ago when I was working 65-70 hours a week, it might have taken me a while to respond as well.

The variety and inconsistency of reports about gods certainly do make it hard to argue in favour of some god concepts.
Supernatural, objective and interventionist deities which have a clear and consistent motive are (in my opinion) right out of the
window. However, this does not apply to gods which are not supernatural, subjective or are themselves inconsistent. I suspect one
of the issues we'll have in this discussion is that we have different ideas about what a deity can and can't be. What you've
described seems to cover certain forms of monotheism and hard polytheism. While these are certainly common expressions of theism, they are by no means the only ones.

My problem is, if you're not talking about supernatural, objective and interventionalist deities, is it worthwhile calling them
gods at all? If it's natural, it isn't a god. It's a thing. Kim Jong Il might have liked to think of himself as a god of sorts
but he was just a man. It doesn't fit. Non-interventionalist gods aren't really worth worrying about either, what difference
does it make? If they don't care about us, if they pay us no mind, who cares about them except on a scholarly level? They mean
as much to us as worms on the bottom of the sea. And for subjective gods, those are indistinguishable from non-existent gods, you
might as well be talking about people with imaginary friends. If anything ought to be rejected out of hand, it's those concepts
because they are not potentially real or meaningful. It's the gods that have the potential to be real and affect the lives of
humans that ought to be examined carefully and those are the supernatural, objective and interventionalist deities that you
mentioned. That's why I tend to exclude things like pan(en)theism, we already have a perfectly good word for nature, we don't
need to call it a god. It's why I also don't pay much attention to deism because it's so generic as to be meaningless, something
vague out there that doesn't care about us and will never have any impact on us is pretty pointless.

This is a very important point to consider when asking "what makes a god worthy of worship?" I'm sure you're aware that
it's impossible to disprove every single god concept out there. As such, I don't think it's wise to take the non-existence
approach when discussing such a topic. Even if you're absolutely 100% convinced that no god of any description could conceivably
exist, surely you have to accept that the concepts of gods are potentially powerful things? To me it seems to make more sense to
tackle the subject from that angle. Then again, you've already mentioned that you feel something real is intrinsically more
valuable than something unreal. As a lover of fiction that's a stance I just can't embrace myself.

Certainly, gods that don't call for our worship aren't worthy of worship. If they don't care, why would we debase ourselves to
them? There's quite a difference between accepting that gods are real, assuming that they are actually objectively real, and
bowing down to them, which we should only do if they are worthy of it. Just because they exist doesn't mean we ought to revere
them, even if they demand it, they have to earn our reverence.

Conceptually, yes, gods can be powerful concepts but more often than not, it's humans who are demanding that power, not the gods
themselves. Since no god has ever been demonstrated to be factually real in the history of humanity, gods aren't actually
powerful, it's their churches and mouthpieces who have been powerful, and in almost all cases, corrupt. What you're really
talking about here are not gods but religions and religions are just self-declared human representatives of gods who declare that
the god's will (which conveniently parallels their own) grants them power and money and influence over people's lives. That's not
a god, that's a scam.

And you can love fiction, so long as you understand the difference between fiction and reality. If gods were just myths, stories
like Aesop's Fables that nobody took seriously, that existed to pass along lessons, there wouldn't be a problem. However, people take modern gods seriously. It's not like they treat the ancient Greek pantheon, they actually think these things exist and they act accordingly. This is why many, many children die every year because their religious parents think an imaginary man in the sky told them to withhold medical treatment. This is why people fly airplanes into the side of buildings because they think that they
get 72 virgins after they die. There's an inordinate number of religious horrors caused by people who hold the bizarre belief
that there's an invisible man in the sky with a bizarre facination with their sex life. You can love fiction, I do myself, but so
far as I know, reading the Harry Potter books hasn't caused anyone to go out and murder the heretics with magic in the name of
Lord Voldemort.

to be continued
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
cont...

You're also right that our perceptions of the world around us are rife with flaws. Whether it be fading/false memory or
outright hallucination, there are a number of reasons why we could (and perhaps should) doubt our own experiences. I do feel that
there comes a point where this stops being useful though. Speaking personally, I'll happily accept that some of my experiences
(those that could be construed as supernatural) could have been in my mind. I may never know the truth on that one, but I see no
value in dismissing them. Firstly, because they've helped to shape the person I've become. Secondly, because I find it extremely
problematic to dismiss what goes on in the mind as having no place in reality.

That's a problem with your perception then. Unfortunately, our beliefs inform our actions whether we like it or not and studies
have shown that the more irrational nonsense you allow into your head, the more you're likely to accept. We know that the more
religious one is, the more likely they are to accept other unscientific, irrational and nonsensical woo. Ghosts, alien
abductions, conspiracy theories, Bigfoot, all manner of ridiculous bunk is much more likely to be accepted by those who buy into
the god claims than by those who are skeptical of things that cannot be demonstrated. You're arguing for personal emotional
comfort, I'm not. I don't give a damn about personal comfort. Reality doesn't exist to make us feel good, reality exists
regardless and it's up to us to deal with it as it is, on it's own terms. It doesn't have to make us happy. It probably
shouldn't. People die horribly every day, they starve, they get hacked up with butcher knives by religious extremists, they get
terrible diseases and live horrible lives and that's just the way it is. Wasting time on our knees talking to ourselves because
it makes us feel good to think that an imaginary friend in the sky might do something about it, but conveniently never actually
does, is foolish. The only way to solve these problems is to get up and actually do something about it. Prayer solves nothing.
Action does. Sure, you might feel powerless but that's mostly because you are. That's why we have to band together and do things
collectively, something we can't do if we're all concerned about bowing down to the wrong imaginary friend.
Dealing with reality as it actually is, that's part of the maturation process and there are far too many people who never really
grow up, they're still pretending that Santa Claus is going to bring good boys and girls presents and the Easter Bunny is going
to bring them a basket of candy. That's not reality.

Your closing sentence really stood out to me:

That's just not how religious experiences operate though and that's why individual experiences with "gods" are just not valuable
to anyone but the person who had the experience and frankly, they ought to be skeptical of them as well I have a couple of issues with this. Firstly, you accept that such experiences are valuable to the individual while simultaneously rejecting them. This seems weirdly arbitrary to me. Why should you reject something that's valuable? I suspect the answer may lie in our very different views on the value of reality.

That brings me on to my second issue. This neatly summarises a recurring theme throughout your post - that it's important to
determine a single, objective reality and that anything which falls outside this reality is flawed at best. Why is it important to
determine what is universally true/untrue?

Because, as I said before, our beliefs inform our actions and when we have faulty beliefs, we have faulty actions. There are
reasons we send doctors, armed with modern medicine, to deal with problems like ebola and not dance around a fire, singing songs
to the skies. Gods don't actually do anything. If we want to feed the hungry, praying isn't going to do it, we need to realize
that we are personally responsible for what goes on and we need to get up and actually do something to accomplish our goals. Some magic man isn't going to do it for us. The question is not, do we reject things that are valuable, it's are these things really
valuable? Or are they just culturally indoctrinated beliefs that don't actually accomplish anything meaningfull and are getting
in the way of things that would actually help? We waste a lot of time and money sitting on our butts in big expensive buildings,
listening to well-meaning people explaining what a fictional father figure in the sky wants us to do. What might we accomplish
with that time and that money if instead of paying for these huge buildings and salaries, if we just went out and helped people?

There are plenty of religious charities who are only using their so-called charitable work as a means of pushing their religious
beliefs on the most helpless and vulnerable people around. There are some who won't give you food until you listen to their
sermon, or won't give you a bed to sleep in unless you profess belief in their religion. It's not about helping people, it's
about converting them to your beliefs. Sure, there are some legitimate religious charities out there, but there are a ton that
are just fronts for religious prosletyzing. People need to stop doing this stuff because they think it's earning them brownie
points with their gods and just do it because it's the right thing to do.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
I really wish a god existed and I had the chance to worship him/her. It would be so nice I am sure. I really feel bad that gods and goddesses do not exist but at that same time I am happy that this world is not bad either.
Religious people have it easy I guess. I have always been jealous of Pagans and Muslims.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I really wish a god existed and I had the chance to worship him/her. It would be so nice I am sure. I really feel bad that gods and goddesses do not exist but at that same time I am happy that this world is not bad either.
Religious people have it easy I guess. I have always been jealous of Pagans and Muslims.

I take it that you are also hoping that such a god would make a difference in the world?

Personally, I would feel very depressed if I found out that God does exist after all. At best, that would mean that we can hope to overthrow or overpower him somehow. Existence as it is is very strong evidence against the existence of a benign, powerful god.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
I take it that you are also hoping that such a god would make a difference in the world?

Personally, I would feel very depressed if I found out that God does exist after all. At best, that would mean that we can hope to overthrow or overpower him somehow. Existence as it is is very strong evidence against the existence of a benign, powerful god.

That sort of becomes an issue obviously. When I think of god I think of an ideal. We as humans want the most optimum and most positive outcome possible and god is a creation to fit this need. If I ever felt a god would be worthy of worship it would have to pretty much rewrite all of history and human existence.
Trying to think of an all good god and wrap it around reality requires serious mental gymnastics and a tongue that can lie quicker than a politician
 
Top