I believe in God

Are our concepts of the gods reflections of ourselves? Our parents? Our ideals and fears? Should everyone have a god? Should everyone's concept of God be the same?
Post Reply
wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

I believe in God

Post by wvanfleet »

In our culture, it is best to report that you believe in God, so that you will be acceptable.

I think there is a tendency for people to define "God" in such a way as to be able to report believing in same.

Some use "God" as a way of explaining why there is something rather than nothing at all, and why things are the way they are.  However, if such explanation is needed, "God" doesn't do the job, because one is left having to explain why there is a God rather than no God at all, and why God is the way he/she/it is.

My God stands for all that I consider good and perfect.  This definition reflects the fact that I can indeed think about goodness and perfection.  And it offers me a guidepost in my efforts to be Humanian to the fullest, in that I always try to aim toward goodness and perfection.  That includes trying to figure out what goodness and perfection are, and the REUEP is the standard I use.

Many people apparently are convinced that they will have no motivation to do good or aim toward perfection unless they can feel that God, as a sentient entity, is watching and being pleased.  There is a developmental line in childhood from the motivation to impress, obey, and please the parent to the internalization of conscience, such that it is not dependent upon the reactions of others.  This will have much to do with whether the person goes along with the group, for instance, rather than sticking to what he or she believes is the right thing to do.

I don't believe that there is an entity that wants me to disobey the REUEP.  (If I did have such a belief, I would be inclined to call that entity the "Devil.")  If there is an entity that wants me to live by the REUEP, then I believe I am passing the grade, even though there is always room for improvement in that regard.

I believe it may be somewhat helpful to me to construct in my imagination an entity that indeed is pleased by my efforts to live by the REUEP, and it seems to be a naturally occurring tendency for us to do that.  I still think it is up to me to do the best I can to figure out what is consistent with the REUEP, and I take responsibility for such decisions.  So I don't do things because God told me to.  I do things because they are consistent with the REUEP.

And I hope my God is pleased.

Bill Van Fleet
Humanian

REveritt
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: I believe in God

Post by REveritt »

You sound like my mother.  She was always coming up with vague, half-baked definitions for God. 

I don't believe in God, but I have ethical values.  I don't need to anthropomorphize them into a quasi-deity, but to each his own.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: I believe in God

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote: You sound like my mother. She was always coming up with vague, half-baked definitions for God.

I don't believe in God, but I have ethical values. I don't need to anthropomorphize them into a quasi-deity, but to each his own.
I believe you indeed have the right to avoid using the word, “god,” to describe something you believe in or stand for, and I agree with you that others certainly should have the right to do the opposite.

And I agree that ethical beliefs are not dependent upon a belief that there is a god that is in some way dictating or legitimating those ethical beliefs. In fact, such a way of legitimating ethics is quite hazardous, IMO.

But I think that we as a species will be better off to allow people to redefine a concept like “God” such as to be able to fit in with the general culture while having a more scientifically based set of beliefs.

Religion is a very strong presence in our societies, and the idea of trying to stamp out such phenomena in order to have a more rational society will tend to cause more PSDED than allowing and encouraging the various religions to improve in the direction of Humanianity. If people redefining “God” helps us as a species to avoid PSDED, and helps us to become more united and more rational at the same time, then I am for it.

Then such definitions are simply additional definitions, and it is only by jumping in and demanding that the definitions not be changed that one would be able to refer to them as “half-baked” and “quasi-.”

I realize that religions do harm, but I also realize they do good. We would not stamp out medications because they sometimes have side effects and adverse reactions. We would try to improve them so they no longer did. We don’t want to throw out babies with bath waters.

But when we see a religion advocating for conclusions that will lead to behavior bringing about PSDED, then I believe we must request the religion to demonstrate that its conclusions are based upon the rules of logic and the rules of evidence. We should demand such of any religion, for instance, that advocates martyrdom.

So I suspect your mother was doing a good thing, trying to keep up with the growing (good) tendency for people to bring their religiously acquired beliefs more in synchrony with modern, science-based explanatory worldviews. And that activity of hers may have been based upon substantial low-grade suffering produced by cognitive dissonance. I say all the more power to her. Unless her rethinking of the concept of God is leading her to think about blowing up something.

We allow children to develop increasingly accurate ideas about the way the world really is without belittling them for not having yet been able to understand like an adult (at least hopefully), and I think similar tolerance and understanding of each other as members of a still infantile, but growing, species is much more consistent with the REUEP, as difficult as such tolerance and understanding might be.

REveritt
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:42 pm

Re: I believe in God

Post by REveritt »

I have nothing against religion, generally, and am happy to peacefully coexist with theists if they keep their superstitions to themselves and don't violate the rights of others.  It is quite possible for mainstream religions to abandon supernaturalism and focus on ethics.

wvanfleet
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm

Re: I believe in God

Post by wvanfleet »

REveritt wrote: I have nothing against religion, generally, and am happy to peacefully coexist with theists if they keep their superstitions to themselves and don't violate the rights of others.  It is quite possible for mainstream religions to abandon supernaturalism and focus on ethics.
As a Humanian, desiring as rapid improvement as possible in the quality of life for our species, and believing that accuracy of belief is important to prevent PSDED, and believing that dialogue with increased mutual understanding is important, I feel a sense of inadequacy in the idea of "peaceful coexistence."

I think that there is a third alternative to either peacefully maintaining a barrier or attempting to win, and that is to mix.  This alternative is more difficult than the other two.  It means being able to empathize with those who believe differently, and to try to see, and give credit to, the good in the other.

Supernaturalism may be a natural part of us all, and we may be unaware of the extent to which it is still within us, even though we have become aware of it and advocate against it.  And yet that supernaturalism may be doing some good, or be associated with other things that are doing good.

I personally have a purely naturalistic approach to attempting to understand the world, but I think there is value in hearing the process of thought in those who accept supernaturalism.

I can even imagine adopting a supernaturalistic idea as a pseudobelief, for the purpose of empathy, or for the purpose of evoking a desired mental state, or for the purpose of humor and play, etc.  I don't do it very much, but I believe it is more of a middle ground than telling others that if they don't agree with me, then they should just keep quiet about those disagreements when around me.

It is a little like entering into a different culture and behaving consistently with that culture because by virtue of doing so there is enhanced social harmony, while nevertheless seeing that some things about that culture may be less valuable than counterparts in one's original culture.  Acceptance within the new culture eventually leads to more open dialogue, with change more likely on the part of all participants by virtue of higher level perspective produced by the contemplation of difference.

Hegel's thesis, antithesis, synthesis comes to mind.  But thesis and antithesis have to mix and interact before systhesis can occur, I think.

Post Reply