This is where your ideas run into some problems. With cognitive dissonance, we know that people do not like conflicting ideas and seek to somehow resolve internal mental conflicts. However, the odd thing is that people take the path of least psychological resistence, which is why cognitive dissonance is associated with people in cult-like environments clearly ignoring obvious facts that falsify their beliefs.

As such, if theism and atheism were purely about emotional reasons, you should not encounter a lot of atheists who said the once believed in a god but really wish their god exists. For example, the gay person who believes theism faces a conflict:

1) I like God, and wish to continue following God.

2) I am gay and wish to have romantic relationships.

3) God condemns being actively gay.

One of these beliefs has to go in order to eliminate cognitive dissonance. The least intrusive one is eliminating 3). There is nothing in theism that states being gay is wrong; this is just an aspect of major religions, but this can be dismissed much in the same way the treatment of gender can be dismissed, and no one has to follow these religions to be a theist. The person gets all the spiritual benefits and can express their romantic and sexual desires.

This, of course, does happen, but it is not as prevenlant as you would need in order to reduce the question of theism to pure desire and emotion. Again, the reasons for any belief are much more complex and vary from person to person. We can talk about mechanisms that people share and reasons people give, but saying, "The belief in proposition x is explained fully by reason y," is faulty.

This, of course, does happen, but it is not as prevenlant as you would need in order to reduce the question of theism to pure desire and emotion. — Chany

Well, my logic is simple.

There are two parties engaged in debate - theists and atheists. As fate would have it they both inhabit the same world. Yet, they come to antipodal conclusions. In a way, pitifully, their simulataneous existence is sufficient proof that both sides have got it wrong - they simply can't convince each other even when they throw their very best arguments at each other. Am I then mistaken in concluding that there's something else that's driving people into theism and atheism?

I'm not asserting that it's only fear and hope that is this something else - that which tips the balance of judgment in favor of or against god. Whatever this something else is, it eventually translates to desire, a desire for god to exist or not, as the case may be.

As you defined God, it is exactly equivalent to the Laws of Nature, both of which are concepts and beliefs with no proof, and are used in an equivalent manner, i.e. am omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient force that is guiding everything in the Universe

.

I understand there is a similarity between god and the laws of nature in that both exercise a form of control over all matter and energy. However, given the laws of nature we can conjecture a law-maker. In this sense we can distinguish between god and the laws of nature.

in the manner that the metaphysical concept is used, Laws of Nature, is usually used as a standalone concept as the first and constant force guiding everything. The is never an appeal to a maker of Laws of Nature that I have encountered.

As far as I can tell, God and Laws of Nature are used in equivalent manner by two separate groups who claim certainty. Either they are both acting rationally or they are both acting irrationally as per your question. The appeal to an outside, guiding force that is guiding everything is exactly equivalent.

Well what do you think of the order that our universe evinces? In other words what is the source of the laws of nature? One answer is God. I thought this was a classic theistic argument??

This is one way to look at it. However, those who appeal to Laws of Nature use it as a placeholder for the exact same theme as God, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, that excludes any notion of individual choice. In this regard, whether we discuss God or Determinism we are really discussing the same thing: i.e. no doubt there is no choice.

Well, my logic is simple.

There are two parties engaged in debate - theists and atheists. As fate would have it they both inhabit the same world. Yet, they come to antipodal conclusions. In a way, pitifully, their simulataneous existence is sufficient proof that both sides have got it wrong - they simply can't convince each other even when they throw their very best arguments at each other. Am I then mistaken in concluding that there's something else that's driving people into theism and atheism? — TheMadFool

There are two parties engaged in debate - believers in space lizards and disbelievers . As fate would have it they both inhabit the same world. Yet, they come to antipodal conclusions. In a way, pitifully, their simulataneous existence is sufficient proof that both sides have got it wrong - they simply can't convince each other even when they throw their very best arguments at each other. Am I then mistaken in concluding that there's something else that's driving people into pro-space lizard and anti-space lizard?

Obviously, it does not follow from mere disagreement that both sides ought to embrace agnosticism. Again, good reasons for belief may not be convincing reasons for belief. Also, I agree that there is more going on than fear and pure logic when it comes to theism and atheism. I disagree that it all comes down to desire. This clearly is not the case, as you would not find atheists who wished theism is true otherwise.

This is one way to look at it. However, those who appeal to Laws of Nature use it as a placeholder for the exact same theme as God, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, that excludes any notion of individual choice. In this regard, whether we discuss God or Determinism we are really discussing the same thing: i.e. no doubt there is no choice. — Rich

I'm not sure if I catch your drift. Laws of Nature per se lack that essential feature of a god-being to wit consciousness.

From our egocentric human view point, I'd suggest prima facie that the more pertinent question surely is - inasmuch as the answer would determine whether from our perspective the God-debate is purely academic - surely is the one of whether our consciousness is ultmately material in origin? Sometimes, even in philosophical discussions, there seems to be an ostensibly unwaranted assumption involved to the effect that somehow the answer to the two questions is evidentialy related! Certainly the 'God' question always seems to excite more attention - such a curious illogicality in the face of the principles of a posteriori reasoning concerning our fate perhaps being rooted in religious ancestry, which I think historically has tended to conflate the two questions in a somewhat hopeful manner?

Anyway - God or no God - faced with the prospect of being buried once, I personally want dug up again! :) - Do I want it to be the case that consciousness is not ultimately material in origin and that the brain is merely the agent by which we presently experience this three dimensional time-continuom such that thereby, at least in principle, there exists the possibility that we could succeed further to experience a constructive existence? Unappoligetically - Yes absolutely!

In practice, I like personally the idea that we are all individually part of some, 'Universal soup' - ultimately destined to evolve into this 'God-thingy' of which then we will each be an indivisible element!

Obviously, it does not follow from mere disagreement that both sides ought to embrace agnosticism. — Chany

Answer me this:

1. If you believe in god what evidence do you have?

2. If you don't believe in god what evidence do you have?


I'm near certain your argument will fall to pieces under scrutiny - simply submit it to the opposing party.

What are we to make of this? Surely it must mean that god has neither been proved nor disproved. This path naturally leads to agnosticism, which I affirm is the most reasonable position on god.

I disagree that it all comes down to desire. — Chany

Well, if rational inquiry fails to establish god's existence/nonexistence then that, at the risk of repetition, precludes any form or shape of reason playing a part in the minds of theism and atheism. What else is there other than simple desire that makes the theist believe and the atheist disbelieve?

Perhaps humans are God shaped, so a religious person is realising this as Wayfarer suggests. — Punshhh

This is true if "man was made in the image of God'. But then if the image of the human is the image of God, then in a symmetrical sense the image of God is the image of the human. And if the world is the expression of God, and God is the image of the human, the world is also human-shaped. In Heidegger's quite different sense the world is human-shaped, because without the human there is no world (animals are "world-poor" according to Heidegger). At the very least we might feel justified in saying that the world appears in its most comprehensive expression in human experience.

Also if God exists there is a purpose and goal towards which people are moving (as opposed to Nietzsche's vision of the death of God). If God doesn't exist that same purpose and goal is going to be constructive anyway and will result in a better life for people (and the biosphere) in the future. Although people will cease to exist upon death (perhaps), they will have had a constructive enjoyable experience before they die.

Spinoza's view of God is like the Buddhist vision, non-teleological; in both there is no ultimate overarching purpose; no culmination in an "end of days" or "end of history". I think what you suggest about the human imagination is on the right track. Even Spinoza, for all his rationalism, allows that the human imagination can "feign" in order to gain a richer understanding. Fiction has a profoundly important place in human life. There can be no rigid demarcation between human faculties.

Well, if rational inquiry fails to establish god's existence/nonexistence then that, at the risk of repetition, precludes any form or shape of reason playing a part in the minds of theism and atheism. What else is there other than simple desire that makes the theist believe and the atheist disbelieve? — TheMadFool

"Rational enquiry" is the exercise, practiced consistently, of teasing out the concomitants of the premises that are implicit in our understanding of our own experience. Of course there are alternative understandings. They have evolved out of the range of what it is possible for us to imagine. The fundamental set of alternative understandings are bedrock; they are the assumptions upon which rational enquiry is enabled to proceed. No rational enquiry can exist without its foundation of presuppositions. The presuppositions cannot themselves be justified by rational enquiry. They are justified only insofar as they are what we can consistently, that is without contradiction, imagine. It really does come down to a matter of taste or need.

I do not need to discuss my views on the question of theism, as my ideas on the subject are irrelevant to the truth of yours.

I have presented an analogy to explain why disagreement that cannot be resolved does not automatically entail that one side of the party is unjustified in their belief. I have explained that not all good reasons for belief are convincing reasons. I have explained why the idea of desire is not sufficient to explain the theist-atheist divide. The notion of atheists who desire some type of god seems to fly in the face of this idea, especially given the known psychological mechanisms would seek to eliminate the weakest and least important belief to psychological coherence- in this case, whatever irks them about God. This does not discuss intuition, faith, religious experience, being justified in false beliefs, believing things for bad reasons, and a bunch of other factors. Desire alone does not cut it; a detailed explanation of the psychological nature of belief formation would do it, but that is pretty much true of any belief formation. Simply put, the reasons for belief in God or lack thereof need to be taken are extremely varied; any attempt to put it down to a single issue or cause will be as faulty as trying to put down a single cause for the responses to, "Why do I like or not like New York City."

I'm not sure if I catch your drift. Laws of Nature per se lack that essential feature of a god-being to wit consciousness. — TheMadFool

That is the point. For those who use the term to explain the outside force thanks governs everything it exactly equivalent, in every way that you describe.

Do you think calling it a Law vs. God changes anything other than spelling? Do you think someone believing in Genesis is any more irrational or rational than someone believing in the Big Bang?

Do you think calling it a Law vs. God changes anything other than spelling? — Rich

Remember I'm speaking of the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (OOO-god). The OOO-god is conscious while the laws of nature is not.

Do you think someone believing in Genesis is any more irrational or rational than someone believing in the Big Bang? — Rich

I don't see the relevance.

I have explained why the idea of desire is not sufficient to explain the theist-atheist divide. — Chany

Well, at least, it boils down to personal preference.

It really does come down to a matter of taste or need. — John

Exactly

Well, at least, it boils down to personal preference. — TheMadFool

As does everything. That is called 'relativism'. There are some people who really like it, and others who don't, of course. Who's to say? Seems to have been a long road to a trivial conclusion.

Do your ears not hear what your mouth has spoken? You say you don't believe in God but then straight away add that you can't imagine what a world without God looks like. (Hint - think communist Russia.)

Ha ha.

Actually I was thinking of the cosmogenesis when there is no God. Is it turtles all the way down? It appears to be entirely without foundation. If there is no God, where is meaning, is everything meaningless, purposeless?

At least when I think of a cosmogenesis with God it is all explained and makes perfect sense.

As does everything. That is called 'relativism'. There are some people who really like it, and others who don't, of course. Who's to say? Seems to have been a long road to a trivial conclusion. — Wayfarer

So, we should all shake hands and become agnostics.

Actually I was thinking of the cosmogenesis when there is no God. Is it turtles all the way down? It appears to be entirely without foundation. If there is no God, where is meaning, is everything meaningless, purposeless? — Punshhh

That's why I mentioned Buddhism in my first response. As you no doubt are aware, the Buddha 'put to one side' such questions about whether the Universe has a beginning or not (there were 10 such 'undecided' questions, in all.) So in that sense Buddhism has stayed outside the whole argument about whether or not the Universe has a supernatural origin. The Buddha starts with 'the fact of suffering and its causes', and proceeds to show the causes of that, in non-theistic terms. In other words, Buddhism doesn't tie the question of meaning to the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods.

But as I said, in the West it's different, because so much of the traditional wisdom of the culture has become bound up with belief in God. So the effect of that has been that the 'secularisation of culture' has undermined traditional belief systems, insofar as they're based on premisses which the scientifically-educated are now expected not to believe.

(Or so they say. I think overall, some of the Catholic philosophers of science - I'm thinking of Robert J Spitzer, Stanley Jaki, and others of that ilk - actually make a very compelling case for the harmonising of science and religious beliefs. But then, as I'm not atheist, I'm inclined to be sympathetic to such arguments.)

I am agnostic, but not atheist.

This is true if "man was made in the image of God'. But then if the image of the human is the image of God, then in a symmetrical sense the image of God is the image of the human. And if the world is the expression of God, and God is the image of the human, the world is also human-shaped. In Heidegger's quite different sense the world is human-shaped, because without the human there is no world (animals are "world-poor" according to Heidegger). At the very least we might feel justified in saying that the world appears in its most comprehensive expression in human experience.

Yes agreed. This reminds me of a thought technique which I use on ocassion. I don't know if there is a word for it. But, simply, I take two positions, such as Humans are God shaped and God is human shaped, which can be in opposition and bang them together until they become one, a kind of synthesis. Simply by adding the thought that there can be nothing which is not God shaped, because everything that there is was made by God, using bits of God, there is nothing else of which to make anything. So God and humans are one and the same, it is only something about our predicament which results in us not knowing this and knowing God.

Spinoza's view of God is like the Buddhist vision, non-teleological; in both there is no ultimate overarching purpose; no culmination in an "end of days" or "end of history". I think what you suggest about the human imagination is on the right track. Even Spinoza, for all his rationalism, allows that the human imagination can "feign" in order to gain a richer understanding. Fiction has a profoundly important place in human life. There can be no rigid demarcation between human faculties.

Yes, I can see a non-teleological perspective, with teleological realities on the smaller scale within the cosmos. But then one is confronted with the idea that scale becomes meaningless when talking of the cosmos. So God can then be on the small scale, local, in a much bigger scale, so we are back where we started, the end of days is only a local event.

Yes I agree about fiction. An example I use is regarding belief in magic, if everyone believes in it, it will happen. I have heard opinions that in ancient India, when it was fully accepted and believed that magic was real. That it did happen and was a part of life. Indeed, I suspect it does still happen, in places where the tradition is still alive. I think I have been a witness to such things myself.

Do you honestly think that people's religious beliefs are motivated by reason?

Some are. Stumbled upon an interesting Wiki article called philosophical theism. I think it's quite a prevalent theme in Western philosophy. (Interestingly, Spinoza is absent - I might add him to the list.)

Yes, I am with you and the Buddha and your agnosticism. It was only when I started posting on these western orientated sites that I began getting involved with all this God business again. God had become an irrelevance for me.

I think there are actually (at least) three conceptions of 'God' vis a vis human experience and thought.

First there is the God of organized popular religions. God is represented differently in different religions, and belief in God is not in this context, I would argue, generally determined by reason.

Secondly there is the conception of God which is exemplified best, I think, in the philosophy of Spinoza. This is a purely rational God; God as fist cause, God as substance, God as nature, and so on. For example,when we think about the idea of existence, about what kinds of existent entities we can think of, the two possibilities are entities which are caused by others and dependent on something other than themselves for their existence and entities which are self-caused. There are entities whose essence does not logically involve existence (logically they might not have existed) and there are entities whose essence involves existence, there are finite, temporal entities and there are in-finite, eternal entities and so on. All this is thinking about God in apophatic terms, as the negation or obverse counterpart of the entities we are familiar with. Such a God is not so much believed in as it is thought.

Thirdly, there is the God of the mystics; the God of intellectual intuition and/or mystical experience. Here it is a matter of direct experience or knowing, and not of belief. But the interesting thing here is that what is intellectually intuited or directly mystically known is not pure; it is culturally mediated. Here it is not so much a matter of belief, but of culture, as to how intuitions and experiences are interpreted. And this kind of intuition and experience can exist outside the context of theism, as it does, for example in Buddhism, and forms of Shamanism.

I think the idea of God this OP is attempting to address is the first, and I think belief, in this context, is not predominately determined by purely rational thought, but rather than by convention, emotional need and in general by psychological, rather than logical, influences.

I think the idea of God this OP is attempting to address is the first, and I think belief, in this context, is not predominately determined by purely rational thought, but rather than by convention, emotional need and in general by psychological, rather than logical, influences. — John

The OP stated the god concept they were discussing was the god of classical theism: your omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent variety. This definitely falls under the second category, though most of its defenders fall into the first category.

First there is the God of organized popular religions. God is represented differently in different religions, and belief in God is not in this context, I would argue, generally determined by reason. — John

Karen Armstrong's book History of God (1), which came out in the early 80's, was really good on this.

In Christianity there is a tension between the rationalist element in religion, which arose from Greek-speaking theologians who brought together Platonism and Christianity - Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and many others. But there is also an anti-mystical strain in Christian history - I think the modern evangelicals, many Protestants, and nominalists, tend to be anti-Platonist.

But, Platonic mysticism is very much the religion of the intellectual elite, so in general terms, I agree with you.

But the interesting thing here is that what is intellectually intuited or directly mystically known is not pure; it is culturally mediated. Here it is not so much a matter of belief, but of culture, as to how intuitions and experiences are interpreted. — John

I'm not sure about that. It's a topic in religious studies, called the Katz-Forman Debate (2), or the context-decontextualisation debate. Robert Katz is the proponent for 'contextualism', i.e. mystical experiences are culturally mediated, there is no 'pure experience'. His opponents, such as Robert Forman, say that a certain class of mystical experience and process are represented in diverse traditions, so is universal or perennial.

I see the 'contextualist' claim as basically reductionist, because it's trying to say that all experience is conditioned, the product of education, history, culture, and so on, which undercuts the idea of a 'realisation of the absolute'. Because of my background which was influenced by theosophy and perennialism, I tend to favour the 'de-contextualists'. But it's another of those arguments that can never be decisively concluded.

I gave up Spinoza decades ago. I read The Courtier and the Heretic, about Liebniz and Spinoza, a few years back, and I must confess that I hardly recall it. It's all too intellectually dense for me, I'm trying to relate to it on a more visceral level, if you know what I mean. (Incidentally if you're interested in that book, PM me and I'll mail it - if you like Spinoza, I'm sure you'd find it fascinating.)