Comments on: Believing in, believing that, believing http://iswhatido.org/2005/08/29/believing-in-believing-that-believing/ like it says Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:18:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: richard http://iswhatido.org/2005/08/29/believing-in-believing-that-believing/#comment-22 richard Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:22:52 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/?p=40#comment-22 <i>"I’d like to think that that’s what God really wants"</i> Think what you like. But it's really pretty absurd. Here you postulate a being that created a universe with untold billions of galaxies, each of which contains billions of stars, and untold numbers of planets; on one particular planet, in one particular corner of the universe, He created, a millisecond or so ago measured against the age of their planet, a species that calls itself mankind; that species has bred like a plague, on course to exterminate, within the next few dozen years, close to 90% of the other species with which they share their planet (species which He also created and which we might assume he therefore loves); men spend most of their free time, when they are not destroying their environment, destroying one another, usually in most imaginatively cruel ways (men are distinguished for their big brains and lively imaginations); and most of their killing and cruelty is justified by appeals to God's will. And you'd like to think that you know what God really wants. If it weren't so sweetly crazy, it would be unbelievably arrogant. Mravac, just try, once, for a minute, to use that vaunted human imagination to consider that there is no God—not in the sense that there are mountains and moons and hurricanes. Consider how you would choose to live under such a condition; would you choose to hurt people and follow ways that simple observation shows to be hurtful, uncomfortable, distressing? Or would you choose to be kind to others, to treat them with a measure of respect, and not to do anything to anybody that you would not want done to you? Because that way of living, if we simply look around at people who follow it, seems likely to produce a substantial measure of happiness and contentment. I think that most people, if they are helped to see that choice clearly, would choose the ways of the good. And those ways have nothing—nada, zero, zilch—to do with whether or not the people following the way believe that they know what God wants them to do. In fact, the best people I've known in my life have been atheists, and the worst people I've known—the cruelist and most arrogant—have been professed believers. If you start by assuming the existence of God, then all of your arguments are inevitably going to be tautologies. If, on the other hand, you start by observing human behavior (not belief—behavior) and looking for patterns that seem to lead to happiness versus patterns that seem to cause misery and distress, then you will find ample reason to behave with kindness, honesty, and compassion, and no reason at all to require the existence of God. Richard “I’d like to think that that’s what God really wants”

Think what you like. But it’s really pretty absurd. Here you postulate a being that created a universe with untold billions of galaxies, each of which contains billions of stars, and untold numbers of planets; on one particular planet, in one particular corner of the universe, He created, a millisecond or so ago measured against the age of their planet, a species that calls itself mankind; that species has bred like a plague, on course to exterminate, within the next few dozen years, close to 90% of the other species with which they share their planet (species which He also created and which we might assume he therefore loves); men spend most of their free time, when they are not destroying their environment, destroying one another, usually in most imaginatively cruel ways (men are distinguished for their big brains and lively imaginations); and most of their killing and cruelty is justified by appeals to God’s will. And you’d like to think that you know what God really wants.

If it weren’t so sweetly crazy, it would be unbelievably arrogant.

Mravac, just try, once, for a minute, to use that vaunted human imagination to consider that there is no God—not in the sense that there are mountains and moons and hurricanes. Consider how you would choose to live under such a condition; would you choose to hurt people and follow ways that simple observation shows to be hurtful, uncomfortable, distressing? Or would you choose to be kind to others, to treat them with a measure of respect, and not to do anything to anybody that you would not want done to you? Because that way of living, if we simply look around at people who follow it, seems likely to produce a substantial measure of happiness and contentment. I think that most people, if they are helped to see that choice clearly, would choose the ways of the good. And those ways have nothing—nada, zero, zilch—to do with whether or not the people following the way believe that they know what God wants them to do. In fact, the best people I’ve known in my life have been atheists, and the worst people I’ve known—the cruelist and most arrogant—have been professed believers.

If you start by assuming the existence of God, then all of your arguments are inevitably going to be tautologies. If, on the other hand, you start by observing human behavior (not belief—behavior) and looking for patterns that seem to lead to happiness versus patterns that seem to cause misery and distress, then you will find ample reason to behave with kindness, honesty, and compassion, and no reason at all to require the existence of God.

Richard

]]> By: Mravac Kid http://iswhatido.org/2005/08/29/believing-in-believing-that-believing/#comment-21 Mravac Kid Fri, 16 Sep 2005 21:18:18 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/?p=40#comment-21 I'd just like to put in a quote I picked up somewhere: "It doesn't matter if you believe in God, but if God believes in you." I'd like to think that that's what God really wants, for people to behave as He would want them, regardless of whether they believe it is He who guides them, or some other deity, or just a goodness of heart. As for the stuff in the Bible, that was written by humans, and mostly people of influence and power, who likely wanted to keep that power. And to do that, intimidation has proven to be an effective method, so they intimidated the subjects with stories of a vengeful God. I’d just like to put in a quote I picked up somewhere:
“It doesn’t matter if you believe in God, but if God believes in you.”
I’d like to think that that’s what God really wants, for people to behave as He would want them, regardless of whether they believe it is He who guides them, or some other deity, or just a goodness of heart.
As for the stuff in the Bible, that was written by humans, and mostly people of influence and power, who likely wanted to keep that power. And to do that, intimidation has proven to be an effective method, so they intimidated the subjects with stories of a vengeful God.

]]> By: is what i do » The view from inside the circle http://iswhatido.org/2005/08/29/believing-in-believing-that-believing/#comment-18 is what i do » The view from inside the circle Fri, 16 Sep 2005 00:43:18 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/?p=40#comment-18 [...] The Seventeenth Skeptics Circle, that is, hosted, in a positively brilliant rendition, by decorabilia. The company is exceptional: a lot of smart bloggers with skeptical takes on a wide range of subjects, from gay penguins to Atlantis. Some of it’s funny, some of it’s though-provoking, some of it’s instructive. It’s all well written and well worth reading. And I’m pleased and honored to report that I’m in the circle this time ’round, with my own take on the nature of belief and the nature of God. Thanks for including me, Jim. [...] [...] The Seventeenth Skeptics Circle, that is, hosted, in a positively brilliant rendition, by decorabilia. The company is exceptional: a lot of smart bloggers with skeptical takes on a wide range of subjects, from gay penguins to Atlantis. Some of it’s funny, some of it’s though-provoking, some of it’s instructive. It’s all well written and well worth reading. And I’m pleased and honored to report that I’m in the circle this time ’round, with my own take on the nature of belief and the nature of God. Thanks for including me, Jim. [...]

]]> By: richard http://iswhatido.org/2005/08/29/believing-in-believing-that-believing/#comment-8 richard Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:12:08 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/?p=40#comment-8 Thanks for the comment, Bill. It's interesting; I've never thought of myself as a "postmodern". In fact, if "postmodernism" means what I think it does, I'm pretty much the opposite of one. I read postmodernism as a way of thinking that pretty much ditches all attempts to found values on objective reality, that, in fact, denies the existence of objective reality. And that's not me. I think, rather than being postmodern, I am pre-modern; I find that the philosophies and ways of thinking that are most appealing to me are those of the enlightenment rationalists. I think, in many ways, that Popper represents the culmination of that tradition, along with such figures as Isaiah Berlin and Alfred North Whitehead, both of whom I admire greatly. I wouldn't consider myself in any way either religious or spiritual, but I believe strongly that there are "goods", in Berlin's sense of the word, that are rationally defensible: civil goods, such as tolerance and respect for the autonomy of the individual; ethical goods, such as generosity and kindliness; and moral goods, such as fidelity and honesty. I don't see such goods relying on the authority of a divinity. It seems to me that common experience demonstrates that those who are good in those ways lead happier lives and make things better for those they come in contact with. That's also why I find Buddhism appealing. I'll have more to say about such ideas in my next installment, which will deal with what there is to believe in, if one chooses not to believe in God (or gods), and what reasons one might find to support belief. Richard Thanks for the comment, Bill. It’s interesting; I’ve never thought of myself as a “postmodern”. In fact, if “postmodernism” means what I think it does, I’m pretty much the opposite of one. I read postmodernism as a way of thinking that pretty much ditches all attempts to found values on objective reality, that, in fact, denies the existence of objective reality. And that’s not me. I think, rather than being postmodern, I am pre-modern; I find that the philosophies and ways of thinking that are most appealing to me are those of the enlightenment rationalists. I think, in many ways, that Popper represents the culmination of that tradition, along with such figures as Isaiah Berlin and Alfred North Whitehead, both of whom I admire greatly.

I wouldn’t consider myself in any way either religious or spiritual, but I believe strongly that there are “goods”, in Berlin’s sense of the word, that are rationally defensible: civil goods, such as tolerance and respect for the autonomy of the individual; ethical goods, such as generosity and kindliness; and moral goods, such as fidelity and honesty. I don’t see such goods relying on the authority of a divinity. It seems to me that common experience demonstrates that those who are good in those ways lead happier lives and make things better for those they come in contact with. That’s also why I find Buddhism appealing.

I’ll have more to say about such ideas in my next installment, which will deal with what there is to believe in, if one chooses not to believe in God (or gods), and what reasons one might find to support belief.

Richard

]]> By: bill http://iswhatido.org/2005/08/29/believing-in-believing-that-believing/#comment-7 bill Tue, 30 Aug 2005 00:38:46 +0000 http://richard.blumberg.org/?p=40#comment-7 Fascinating. While my complete reading of the Popper lecture that you linked to is in process, as is a more thoughtful comment to your post, I'll say just this. You may well have explained why many postmoderns both believe in God and don't. Which might also bring them to say “I'm spiritual but not religious.� Now I'm not summarizing your post with this position. Instead, I'm suggesting that you, and Karl Popper, may have the answer that many a Christian evangelist is looking for. That answer may well be that many postmoderns are aware of world 3 but unable to differentiate it from world 2 (or even world 1). At least that's what I've been struggling with. Hopefully I'll have something better to add later. bill Fascinating.

While my complete reading of the Popper lecture that you linked to is in process, as is a more thoughtful comment to your post, I’ll say just this. You may well have explained why many postmoderns both believe in God and don’t. Which might also bring them to say “I’m spiritual but not religious.â€?

Now I’m not summarizing your post with this position. Instead, I’m suggesting that you, and Karl Popper, may have the answer that many a Christian evangelist is looking for.

That answer may well be that many postmoderns are aware of world 3 but unable to differentiate it from world 2 (or even world 1). At least that’s what I’ve been struggling with.

Hopefully I’ll have something better to add later.

bill

]]>