Why won't God go away?

[Trailblazer]

Why is it so difficult to make "God" go away?

God is far, far away, seated on His Throne of glory, so I don't know what you are complaining about.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Perhaps because humans, being more than just material in nature, have a deep spiritual need which can only be fulfilled through conscious contact with the infinite, the ineffable, and the divine?

That is a most interesting consideration for many of us here, this idea of "conscious contact with the infinite, the ineffable, and the divine."

Speaking for myself, I strongly distrust many of the claims of "religious experience," because they look so amazingly similar to neurological mis-fires that lead people to hear voices of dead relatives, to make incredible cognitive mistakes ("The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat"), the drug experiences that give people the perception that they've transcended something or other, when in fact they were just plain completely stoned.

It is even demonstrably true that various sorts of rituals can act in much the same way as drugs, altering cognition in very strange ways. Look at the whirling dances of the dervishes, the "speaking in tongues" of Pentecostals, chanting of mantras by buddhist monks, and so forth. These, too, can alter perception and change the actual neuron firing in the brain.

Thus, we question whether there is something going on between an individual brain on the infinite, ineffable and divine, or whether there has just been an alteration in perception itself, that makes it feel as if something else has happened.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right! So on a social/cultural cost/benefit analysis, does God come out economical or profligate overall?

Theistic belief, not God.

It varies. In some places, people pay a heavy social cost for leaving their church.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unjustifiable for you.

No, unjustifiable, period.

Knowledge is what we would use to

There is no empirical evidence for God because God is unobservable and unmeasurable,

You're saying that justification for belief in God cannot exist.

but that is not evidence is consistent with the conclusion that God does not exist, since there is no reason to think that God would be observable or measurable.

Sounds like you misunderstood me.

A set of observations (e.g. absolutely zero empirical evidence for God) can be consistent with more than one conclusion (e.g. that God does not exist, OR that God exists but is irrelevant in every way we can measure).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We do know 'some things' about God, so we are not praying to "I don't know."

That was my point.

 

[siti]

Because it is to me. I have never been keen on false dichotomies and either-or thinking.

Ah! Well I'm not sure natural/supernatural is a false dichotomy in terms of explanations of phenomena...but I think I agree if you mean that some natural phenomena are just not amenable to naturalistic explanations - even in principle. "God" (in at least one of its many guises) just might be one of those I suppose...a natural consequence of the existence of the natural universe - or maybe vice versa? And if that's right, that's why "he" won't go away - "he" just can't help being there.

I find it very odd to be told by outsiders that I'm somehow not doing what I'm doing? Because... I'm clearly doing it?

I sincerely hope you don't think I'm telling you that? As I said recently elsewhere, even if our entire existence is an illusion, we are still experiencing it...our experience...the fact that we are experiencing it I mean, not necessarily the content thereof because we can be deceived/mistaken by our experiences... The fact that we are experiencing it is the ONLY aspect of reality we can truly be 100% certain of.

So there's part of your answer as to why notions persist. Things need not be either/or

Right! That's another good answer...God is not either dead or alive, existent or non-existent...etc..."he" is both there and not there at the same time (like Shroedinger's cat?)

 

[siti]

Theistic belief, not God.

For a theist, what's the difference? For a non-theist, most of the ones around here seem to be having far more trouble with definitions than questions.

But in any case, I was thinking on a wider scale...I meant the cost/benefit to the entire culture (not just individuals) of maintaining belief in their deity (if that is the kind "God" they have). Maybe its just cultural inertia? Evolutionary conservatism perhaps (if that's not an oxymoron)?

 

[Trailblazer]

No, unjustifiable, period.

Knowledge is what we would use to

The essence (intrinsic nature) of God is unknowable, but we can know the attributes of God and the will of God through what the Messengers of God reveal.

If the essence of God is unknowable, then belief in God without that knowledge is justifiable.

You're saying that justification for belief in God cannot exist.

No, I am saying that since God is unobservable and unmeasurable, it is justified to believe in a God who cannot be observed or measured.
It is more than justified, it is reasonable.

Sounds like you misunderstood me.

A set of observations (e.g. absolutely zero empirical evidence for God) can be consistent with more than one conclusion (e.g. that God does not exist, OR that God exists but is irrelevant in every way we can measure).

It could be door #1 or door#2, but I believe it is door #3.
3. God exists and is relevant even though God cannot be seen or measured.

 

[MikeF]

Why is it so difficult to make "God" go away?

The concept or belief in these entities persists and will continue to persist as long as a sufficient percentage of the population hold these belief and feel obligated to indoctrinate the next generation into the belief, training and conditioning the next generation to form an emotional dependency on such beliefs. Of course such indoctrination and training will not stick for some small percentage of inductees, but as long as a sufficient base of believers rise with the next generation, belief in these entities will continue to persist.

Although, these entities are so imbued in every culture, found throughout myth and literature, that the concept as well as belief will probably never fully die out. I would predict that even if the vast majority of some future generation did not believe in such entities and they no longer dominated the cultures psyche, there will always be a small group who will cling to these ancient myths.

 

[siti]

All this talk of ineffability is making my head spin.

Could it be that "effing" the "ineffable" could be the most fruitful way of finding common ground between believers and unbelievers? And then we'll also be able to "eff" one another's viewpoints more "eff"ectively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The essence (intrinsic nature) of God is unknowable, but we can know the attributes of God and the will of God through what the Messengers of God reveal.

Enough about "messengers." Please don't try to make this thread about your religion.

If the essence of God is unknowable, then belief in God without that knowledge is justifiable.

This makes no sense.

No, I am saying that since God is unobservable and unmeasurable, it is justified to believe in a God who cannot be observed or measured.
It is more than justified, it is reasonable.

If God is unobservable and unmeasurable, it's even more justified and reasonable to believe that God just isn't there at all.

It could be door #1 or door#2, but I believe it is door #3.
3. God exists and is relevant even though God cannot be seen or measured.

"God is irrelevant in every way we can measure" is another way of saying what you said to describe your God: "God is unobservable and unmeasurable."

 

[siti]

It seems to me that this is what Nietzsche probably is afraid of. He's afraid of something. I'm not sure what

Oh - I think he...along with many then and now, were afraid, like Keats half a century before him, that by "unweaving the rainbow" as Newton had already done, we had unleashed a power, initiated a process, that would inevitably lead to the "haunted sky" being entirely depopulated. And what then? Well of course then we're on our own...we have no option but to guide our own morality, answer our own mysteries for ourselves, assuage our own fears...

...the world was a fearful enough terrain to navigate with God in it and on your side...to be cast adrift on the tide of change with neither a map nor a guide must have been a daunting prospect indeed (for 19th century European culture).

...and yet, despite the prophecies of Keats and Nietzsche, God still "haunts the skies"...is fear the only reason that God persists?

 

[Trailblazer]

Enough about "messengers." Please don't try to make this thread about your religion.

That is the last thing I want to do.

This makes no sense.

"If the essence of God is unknowable, then belief in God without that knowledge is justifiable."

It is justifiable because it is unreasonable to expect to know what we cannot know.
It is also justifiable because we do not need to know the essence of God in order to believe in God.
If we had needed to know that God would have revealed it to us.
Also, humans would never be able to comprehend the essence of God, so why would God reveal that to us?

If God is unobservable and unmeasurable, it's even more justified and reasonable to believe that God just isn't there at all.

Spoken like a true atheist...
Are you assuming that if God existed God would be observable and measurable?
Either that or you are saying that unless God is observable and measurable you are not willing to believe God exists.

But do you understand that God could be an entity that is neither observable or measurable?
If God is such an entity then we can never observe or measure God. That is what the Bible says God is and Baha'i scriptures confirm that.

"God is irrelevant in every way we can measure" is another way of saying what you said to describe your God: "God is unobservable and unmeasurable."

I do not know what you meant by "God is irrelevant in every way we can measure." What do you mean by measure?
Do you mean measure according to definition 2. below? Do you mean that God is irrelevant because we cannot estimate or assess the extent, quality, value, or effect of God?

Measure

1. ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.
"the amount of water collected is measured in pints"

2. estimate or assess the extent, quality, value, or effect of (something).
"it is hard to measure teaching ability"

measure means - Google Search

 

[RestlessSoul]

I have noticed that in the many decades since Nietzsche that wherever God is pushed out, some other god often appears. Sometimes its a politician if one happens to live in a fascist country, and there is no higher authority than the leader of that country. The image of a leader goes up everywhere to be admired and imitated. Leaders everywhere and throughout History often attempt to deify themselves. When they don't they are considered unusually humble. Its predictable, actually, if you watch those drawn to power; and the more power they want the easier it is for them to become self deceived and to desire others to believe that they are a deity. Worse, they draw other people into their fiction, and it seems obvious that people regularly enjoy being so drawn to deities and will even enforce the illusion of deity and impress it upon leaders.

It seems to me that this is what Nietzsche probably is afraid of. He's afraid of something. I'm not sure what, but he's afraid something bad will happen if God is removed. I feel like we've seen what happens due to the availability of History as well as the intense recording of events over the last several centuries.

Are you sure? There are places where God has been pushed out, and you could probably move to one of them. I'm not saying you have to.

For the sake of context regarding Nietzsche;

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed Him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned, has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe the blood off our hands?”

Nietzsche then, clearly acknowledged the loss implicit in his observation.

 

[danieldemol]

Well yes...assuming (for the sake of discussion) that God doesn't really exist, and fails to meet any reasonable test of logical or philosophical necessity (at least any more)...presumably his continued presence amongst us serves some utilitarian purpose...

...but what purpose? What use is God? What good does God achieve that could not be got by other (less costly) means?

God keeps otherwise useless apologists employed lol

 

[RestlessSoul]

God keeps otherwise useless apologists employed lol

And gives atheists something to fixate on.

 

[danieldemol]

And gives atheists something to fixate on.

I can understand them even though I differ from them, if someone kept trying to intrude on your life over a character you saw as fictional i believe you would likely be fixated on debunking it too.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is a most interesting consideration for many of us here, this idea of "conscious contact with the infinite, the ineffable, and the divine."

Speaking for myself, I strongly distrust many of the claims of "religious experience," because they look so amazingly similar to neurological mis-fires that lead people to hear voices of dead relatives, to make incredible cognitive mistakes ("The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat"), the drug experiences that give people the perception that they've transcended something or other, when in fact they were just plain completely stoned.

It is even demonstrably true that various sorts of rituals can act in much the same way as drugs, altering cognition in very strange ways. Look at the whirling dances of the dervishes, the "speaking in tongues" of Pentecostals, chanting of mantras by buddhist monks, and so forth. These, too, can alter perception and change the actual neuron firing in the brain.

Thus, we question whether there is something going on between an individual brain on the infinite, ineffable and divine, or whether there has just been an alteration in perception itself, that makes it feel as if something else has happened.

And then of course, there are all the cases or religious mania recorded in the brief history of psychiatric medicine. There are certainly plenty of grounds on which to dismiss all religious experience as hallucination. But you could argue that about any human experience. Philosopher, historian and writer Hypolite Taine once defined reality as confirmed hallucination.

The best measure of experience might be the effect it has on the life of the person or persons undergoing it. Judge the experience, and the person claiming it, by their fruits as it were. If prayer and meditation, for example, bring a practitioner serenity, clarity, and direction, then even if we dismiss it as self hypnosis, we would be unwise not to recognise its value. And of course, those who have had life changing spiritual experiences of their own can pity the scoffers.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I can understand them even though I differ from them, if someone kept trying to intrude on your life over a character you saw as fictional i believe you would likely be fixated on debunking it too.

Well that is not a scenario I recognise, nor can I relate to it in any way, so I suppose I will take your word for it.

 

[Koldo]

Behind cultural evolution? The same force that made our cultures abandon the wearing of bustle dresses, whalebone corsets, top hats and shirts with enormous frills at the front...they were excessive, expensive and brought very little genuine benefit that couldn't be got by simpler and less costly styles.

I legit wonder how exactly that happened. It doesn't seem to be related to the cost or the lack of genuine benefit. After all, buying expensive things with little benefit is a sign of social status.