G-d Doesn't Matter?

David

Please deconstruct and destroy this argument so that I can attempt to rebuild it more robustly. I'm currently working on a geometric-style proof for this, so any attacks (and points I hadn't considered) are more than welcome.

Here's an argument on why we shouldn't act in an attempt to make any kind of divine force happy:

If divine forces don't exist, then trying to make them happy is obviously just stupid.

On the other hand, let's say they do exist. In fact, let's say that, with absolute certainty, we know that something supernatural and superpowerful exists, we have no way of knowing its nature. There have been millions (maybe less, but still lots) of religions throughout humanity's time on earth, many with extremely contradictory beliefs. Aside from the fact that it is simply ridiculous that the "right one" just happens to be the one most religious people are born with and indoctrinated into, from an objective point of view, it seems unreasonable that anyone would ever be able to decidedly claim one's logical superiority over another. What I mean to say is that in order to decide upon a religion in a logical way, You would have to go through all of their apologetics in a very deep and thorough manner– to the degree that it isn't possible for a human with only so much time to learn can do so. But lets say that there is someone that has an unbelievable amount of time (maybe this person will live 500 years) in order to realize what the correct way of acting in order to appease the gods is. Even in that ridiculous case, such an act takes upon itself the assumption that someone, somewhere at some point in time was aware of the "true nature" of the divine forces that walk our world, which we have no reason to believe in the first place. Ultimately, we are left with an infinite series of possible things that the gods might want us to do, none with a transcendentally more convincing argument than another. Being Jewish, I heard a good one for Judaism a couple of days ago (that its great reveal, the ten commandments and the torah, happened in front of 3 million people, none of whom are later recorded refuting this event, and how can You keep such a large conspiracy?) but there doesn't seem to be any fundamental way in which any argument of that level–which are all the ones I've heard from any religion–trumps ones that others may have, where otherwise "impossible" events are explained by the existence of a mysterious divine force. I mean, maybe G-d is a huge liar and wrote the bible in a way that completely gets it wrong, just to trick everyone. Recognizing these endless possibilities and the lack of compelling argument for any particular case (as far as I am aware), we are left with an endless number of religions that have a roughly equivalent, infinitesimal probability. Of course, the wisest choice, if You want to avoid perpetual hell or whatever these divine forces might do to You if You don't give them what they want, is to choose the most likely of these possibilities, but fundamentally, Hinduism is no more or less explainable in a logical sense than Animism or Islam or Judaism or Shinto, because they all rely on having some kind of a mystical wild-card every time something that doesn't seem logically conductive arises. With that said, it is just as likely, that the "true" divine spirit will value murder as it is that they will condemn it. No action or way of life can actually increase Your probability of doing whatever it is those divine forces want You to do.

In other words, regardless of whether a divine deity exists, doing what they tell You is useless at the level of "You must do what the divine deity tells You because it is the basis of true morality" or of "You must do what the divine deity tells You because good things will happen to You if You do." This doesn't mean that I necessarily support the complete break from tradition and religion (although I'm not opposed to it either). However, I, for example, still consider myself Jewish and act "Jewishly", despite believing that doing so will in no way affect Heavenly forces, because I am aware that it will affect Earthly forces, namely my psychology, but also other factors that are perhaps too subtle for me to be aware of.
Anyways, that's just my take.

Hanover

My understanding of Jewish tradition (at least in one of its forms) is that the basis for obeying Jewish law is rooted in the value that you will obtain in this world. This is different from the Christian tradition that holds that you should do good in order to obtain eternal rewards. This is not to say that Jews don't believe in a world after this one, but the emphasis is exactly where you put it in your discussion above, which is doing things in a Jewish way for the benefit of this life.

Regarding whether God has tricked everyone and told them the opposite of what is true, I don't know what to make of that. If you don't have faith that God is honest, then I guess anything could follow as to what he meant when he said things. He'd be just like any other person you couldn't trust.

Jose Valqui

1. You have to explain what you mean by "divine deity".
2. The whole action of pleasing gods is just as to give people the certainty that their lifes have a meaning.
3. In my personal opinion it is more likely that a benevolent God (it is just as likely for the God to be evil, but in that case nothing anyone does will "save him" after death) will want people to act in a good way (good is not, as many people thing, something subjective), so in consequence, the only reasonable way to act, asuming that there is a God from whom we know nothing, is to be ethically good.

unenlightened

... why we shouldn't act in an attempt to make any kind of divine force happy ... — David

It's hubristic folly. Give God the credit for creating things (and 'us') the way He wanted them. Otherwise He's a douchebag failure that doesn't deserve our consideration.

BC

If divine forces don't exist, then trying to make them happy is obviously just stupid. — David

I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. No god, no gods. But... humans created god(s) in their own image. It would be stupid to believe in god IF there were no collateral benefits. As it happens, there are some advantages.

Common beliefs tie communities together. If instructions for good behavior are woven into those common beliefs, so much the better. Worship of the divine being(s) involves rituals which give rich meanings to individuals and communities. People also derive meaning and satisfactions from conforming to the ideas of proper behavior towards one another, one's self, and to the created godhead. All that is to the good.

Humans invested their god(s) and the associated religions with some of their negative human traits, like vindictiveness, jealousy, cruelty, and so forth -- the list of negative human traits is familiar to us all. With or without religion, humans can be appalling bastards.

I have problems with the Christian concept of god. God the all powerful, all knowing, all present... becomes a being that exceeds our capacity. The god who is infinitely present in all places and at all times, knows all, sees all, and is capable of intervening at any time is simply beyond our time/space-bound capacity to imagine. We can formulate such a god, but we can not know such a god.

My reading of the Bible, including the Gospels, tells me that I should be good to others for their sake, and not because there will be any eternal reward. We live and know only this world, and no other. Our reward for being good in this world is a better world. Our punishment for being bad in this world is a worse one.

If we can't know god, prove anything about god, or be certain of his existence, we can't finally disprove his existence either. There will be no final proof. Atheists can be confident in their disbelief, believers can be confident in their faith, and agnostics can be sure that their dithering will never stop. And whatever our beliefs or non-beliefs, we can behave well or badly as it suits us, and accept the consequences.

Hanover

I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. — Bitter Crank

but...

All that is to the good. — Bitter Crank

What anchors the good to reality if not God? Is it just man's declaration of what is good? Or, is the good good regardless of what demented person might call it bad? Unless you're willing to admit that the good is just some manmade invention subject to redefinition at will (and rejecting the view that our understanding of the good evolves over time, getting ever closer to the truth with the passage of time), it strikes me that you are a theist. Your god is what is good, just, and pure, and that god is what the Christian and the pious atheist both worship, just calling themselves different names.

So, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that God does exist.

BC

So, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that God does exist. — Hanover

Fine by me.

What anchors the good to reality if not God? — Hanover

Are you suggesting that God is the source of good, actively anchors the good to reality, or that God is the hook on which we hang our definition of good?

Is it just man's declaration of what is good? Or, is the good good regardless of what demented person might call it bad? Unless you're willing to admit that the good is just some manmade invention subject to redefinition at will (and rejecting the view that our understanding of the good evolves over time, getting ever closer to the truth with the passage of time), it strikes me that you are a theist. — Hanover

Whether one believes that God is the source of good, actively anchors the good, or is a hook, we are still obliged to examine and defend any definition of good. God told the Israelites to kill everyone in town, including the babies by bashing in their heads against the stone wall. He also said to love mercy. Believers have to examine and defend the words (which are written by various someones...) in the Bible. If God says that Israel's burnt offerings are disgusting, and what he would really like are a few more genuinely contrite hearts, one has to examine and defend it. If one believes that it is immoral to commit adultery, for instance, because God said so, one will have to examine and defend that position.

If I decide on a list of 10 principles that I think are good, and you come up with a completely different list, both of us have to examine and defend what we think is good. There are several definitions of "good" circulating among the 7 billion + people. Most of the people think they are right. (People generally don't adhere to definitions that they think are wrong, bad, or stupid.) People examine and defend what they view as right. This leads to conflict, but there is nothing new about that.

Your god is what is good, just, and pure, and that god is what the Christian and the pious atheist both worship, just calling themselves different names. — Hanover

That's a nice formulation. I will examine, and maybe defend it.

David

↪Jose Valqui

1. You have to explain what you mean by "divine deity".

By "divine force" I mean anything mystical that anyone might worship, which the person worshipping believes to be supernatural and have some kind of will, which it is beneficial to follow, either because it is an absolute morality or because it will bring some tangible benefits. To Christians, and Jews, this is capital G, G-d, to Muslims, it's Allah, to the ancient Greeks the pantheon, to Buddhists it is whichever undeified force/judge determines reincarnation. In other words, something intangible (or with intangible mystical elements) which, if real, should define one's morality.

3. In my personal opinion it is more likely that a benevolent God (it is just as likely for the God to be evil, but in that case nothing anyone does will "save him" after death) will want people to act in a good way (good is not, as many people thing, something subjective), so in consequence, the only reasonable way to act, asuming that there is a God from whom we know nothing, is to be ethically good.

First, I think You create a false binary where G-d must be either good or evil. This is not my posture. I am suggesting that we don't know G-d's nature, therefore, these concepts of good and evil stop making sense because it would make most sense that good simply means, in the way You use it, what is most G-dly. Many of us might not think that it was "good" that the Aztecs would force their subjugates to send tributes every year whom they would sacrifice to their gods, but I'm certain that they believed that it was "good". So what is ethically good?

Are You suggesting that G-d is likely consistent? I.e., if It is good, it will treat those who believe in It well? If You are, then I think You're making too big an assumption. If we can truly recognize that we know nothing of G-d's nature, then any combination is possible. It is possible that G-d values exactly the things we think It does, and that G-d believes that perpetual torture is best possible recompense. Does that makes sense?

You use the term "ethically good" freely, but what does it mean? How do we know what ethically good IS? Is ethically good what our society tells us is right? Is it what our religion tells us is right? Is it our whims? Is it acting on one's own philosophy? Is it being a complete douchebag? Is it going on killing sprees? If You don't have an absolute GOOD (which I know You don't because You live in a multicultural society, and You are philosophically-minded enough to be in this discussion and read my post), what does G-d have to do with being good at all?
For me, it is just fundamentally important to be this idea that I have in my head of what a "good person" is (which has been crafted from lots of different things I've seen and heard).

David

↪Hanover

As a fairly knowledgeable Jew, I'd say You're just about right in Your description of motivators.

Regarding whether God has tricked everyone and told them the opposite of what is true, I don't know what to make of that. If you don't have faith that God is honest, then I guess anything could follow as to what he meant when he said things. He'd be just like any other person you couldn't trust.

I know You said You don't know what to make of that, but I urge You to try to make something out of it. I am aware I claimed that I posted my argument because I want feedback (and that is true), but my ulterior motive was to make people truly and deeply consider a (perhaps) different perspective. So I guess I ask You, how do You know G-d is honest? What are the implications, justifications and possible attacks on such a belief?

David

↪unenlightened

It's hubristic folly.

Bravo. That argument brought tears to my eyes.

David

↪Bitter Crank

As it happens, there are some advantages.

Absolutely. This is why I mentioned that I fully consider myself Jewish despite believing that none of my actions have any kind of a predictable heavenly resonance. It's all about the subtleties.

God the all powerful, all knowing, all present... becomes a being that exceeds our capacity

Same with the Jewish one, and Allah, to my knowledge. More than that, it makes absolutely no sense that an entity so broad and aware would, or even could have preference. For example, to know everything means to be fully aware of every truth and non-truth in such a thorough and significant way that there is no distinction between either. Preference (of morals, for example) in of itself is a flaw that would seem below such a G-d, as preference, I believe, represents a limited horizon. I love my mom because of the pronoun I used to describe her (my). But this is going off topic. This post is not about whether particular conceptions of G-d make logical sense; it is about whether we should act on some kind of godly morality.

My reading of the Bible, including the Gospels, tells me that I should be good to others for their sake

Funny how I feel that my fairly different influences have brought me to the same place of moral understanding...

And whatever our beliefs or non-beliefs, we can behave well or badly as it suits us, and accept the consequences.

I agree, but I also feel that "a the world will be what it is" mentality is fairly stagnating, and I try going against it. I think it still is important to place emphasis on consideration and reevaluation of one's ideas (regardless of what You believe). And the ultimate point is that even if I really, really, really, really wanted to be behave well, I don't know how to. I know how I think I should behave, but I am also extremely aware that my opinion in that regard is extremely limited, and comes directly from all the influences that have been around me my life. Ultimately, I could be wrong, and may be a saint, but still end up accepting consequences for my "bad" actions (which I believe are good)...

David

↪Hanover

What anchors the good to reality if not God? Is it just man's declaration of what is good?

Yes

Or, is the good good regardless of what demented person might call it bad?

To You it is. To them, the are right and You're demented.

Unless you're willing to admit that the good is just some manmade invention subject to redefinition at will (and rejecting the view that our understanding of the good evolves over time, getting ever closer to the truth with the passage of time)

I am entirely willing to admit that good is a manmade invention, but not that it is subject to redefinition at will. I believe what I believe and the process of coming to believe that has been long and based on what the people I have grown up around believe, what I have experienced, and the thoughts I have had. I can not simply say that killing off people that annoy me is good because it is convenient to me. I might make that claim, but I won't actually believe it; artificial things are real too.

I think it is necessarily true that our understanding of good evolves over time. There is historical evidence of this. Further, I believe this on a personal level (as my understanding of good has evolved through my life). However, I do not think that this understanding is necessarily more true or better (tbh, I don't believe in an absolute truth, which is why the whole "listen to G-d" thing bugs me in the first place), it simply, as You very appropriately said "evolves", a process, which much like organic, biological evolution, does not have an end goal; it merely changes every so often in unpredictable directions.

Your god is what is good, just, and pure, and that god is what the Christian and the pious atheist both worship, just calling themselves different names.

Wow. Beautiful. Considering it on a logical level, though, I feel like You are reducing G-d to morality rather than vice-versa. In other words, from what You said, it should follow that G-d is merely an easier name for whatever You call the system of morality the governs Your life. Thus, G-d's reaction becomes irrelevant; we are just computers and the program we follow is G-d or morality or whatever You want to call it. An interesting idea. Now my question is why You might follow a G-d the effects of which are completely unknown. For example, part of my morality-G-d is helping other people; for the most part, I know that when I help people they are generally helped. On Your end, how can You know that worshipping (as You understand it) G-d is actually causing G-d to feel worshipped? What I mean to say is that the G-d You happen to pray to is one whom You could never know how to pray to? Doesn't that make prayer feel useless? Or is Your prayer to that G-d in fact just part of some greater worship to some kind of social god? (Have I gone too deep in my metaphor?)

David

↪Bitter Crank

Your second post is beautifully explained and reasoned.

we are still obliged to examine and defend any definition of good.

What obliges us (which I'm assuming implies "us humans")? Or do You mean "us philosophically-inclined people"? In any case, isn't that obligation merely part of Your own sense of morality, which likely doesn't apply to many people? Or do You mean, we literally have to because there is no way to not, as it is the way humans process and deal with morality?

People examine and defend what they view as right.

So morality is variant and people defend what they believe. I agree that seems to be generally true. What do You think would would happen if people, rather than defend their beliefs attempted to reconcile them with others', holding neither above the other before evaluation of which is more reasonable or correct? Is that even fundamentally possible, or is the root of our very decisions about which beliefs are better than others, the determinant, the judge in our heads, so fundamentally decided by the beliefs that are already held that there is no reconciliation? Perhaps, this is more of a psychological question than a philosophical one, but I'd still like to hear peoples' stances.

Finally, You're sort of going off-topic (sorry, if I am too), and didn't really respond to Hanover. Great, cultural relativism is real, and people believe what they believe! How does that attack or support the claim that G-d is the anchor of good?

David

Just throwing this out to the community: am I doing this forum right? I feel like every person that takes the time to read and answer my post deserves a response, but at the same time, I don't know whether responding one-by-one is appreciated and whether it takes away from a discussion.

Also, how do You quote people? I get the feeling I'm doing it wrong...

mcdoodle

Also, how do You quote people? I get the feeling I'm doing it wrong... — David

Click and drag your mouse across the text you want to quote, and release. Then it will magically appear in the comment box ready for you to type around it.

Mind you, it has aesthetic appeal the way you do it too.

I rarely talk about gods, even to disbelieve in them, but I was just passing :)

David

Click and drag your mouse across the text you want to quote, and release. Then it will magically appear in the comment box ready for you to type around it. — mcdoodle

Wow! MAGICAL X-)

Well, thank You for the help :D

BC

am I doing this forum right? — David

You are. Some put up a post and rarely follow up, others engage steadily with responses.

BC

What obliges us (which I'm assuming implies "us humans")? Or do You mean "us philosophically-inclined people"? In any case, isn't that obligation merely part of Your own sense of morality, which likely doesn't apply to many people? Or do You mean, we literally have to because there is no way to not, as it is the way humans process and deal with morality? — David

"Us philosophically-inclined people" are definitely obliged to examine and defend any definition of good, but not everyone is philosophically inclined. Believers in a faith system do well to examine and defend what they believe as a means to achieve the good. Just because one was raised as a Christian, Jew, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Hindu... whatever, doesn't mean one has engaged in examination and defense of one's beliefs. Examination and defense in a dialogue with other believers is better, with skeptical believers, or non-believers is best.

What do You think would would happen if people, rather than defend their beliefs attempted to reconcile them with others', holding neither above the other before evaluation of which is more reasonable or correct? Is that even fundamentally possible, or is the root of our very decisions about which beliefs are better than others, the determinant, the judge in our heads, so fundamentally decided by the beliefs that are already held that there is no reconciliation? Perhaps, this is more of a psychological question than a philosophical one, but I'd still like to hear peoples' stances. — David

I don't believe there is any point in trying to reconcile disparate beliefs. Catholics and Protestants might reconcile beliefs or practices with the help of a few rounds of beer. Christians and Hindus are too dissimilar, as are Jews and Buddhists, Sikhs and animists, and so on.

Most religions have picked up pieces of theological flotsam and jetsam from other religions over the course of their histories, but I'm not in favor of contemporary syncretism. Jesus and Buddha are both worthy of study by believers of any faith, but but we don't have to make a smoothie of them.

My personal experience has been thus: Having been raised by enthusiastic and committed believers, the principles of Christianity has been too deeply installed to be altogether eradicated. Protestant theology is my "operating system" regardless of what I have come to believe. This is not a comfortable arrangement, but there's not much I can do about it (believe me, I've tried).

I think even philosophically inclined people do better to accept that they possess a given cultural history (whether they like it or not) then to suppose that culture can just be switched out like so many memory chips. Even those raised in wishy-washy suburbias devoted to Walmart consumerism and the 3 car garage have an installed cultural base to acknowledge.

Maybe our native culture is a rut from which there is no escape, but we can certainly build on, even transcend the culture we started with. It's hard work, though.

This is basically Pascal's Wager, and you're arguing that we should reject that sort of reasoning. I think that you make some good points, and I agree with your argument and its conclusion. Nietzsche eschewed otherworldliness and believed that we should focus on thisworldliness. On that basis, he criticised Christianity and Platonism, and praised Judaism. Ideally, the motivation for doing good should not be the selfish reason of going to Heaven or avoiding Hell, nor simply because one believes that God has willed it, but more for its own sake.

To directly answer the title question, God doesn't matter much to me, because I don't believe that God exists. Although it can make for an interesting discussion. The many varied conceptions of God range from intriguing to nonsensical to trivial to misleading to downright immoral. I don't think that God should take pride of place in one's life. There are more important things to focus on. Morality and goodness for example, which is distinct and separable from the concept of God (and, despite what some may say, the two terms are not synonymous, although they can nonetheless be treated as such, albeit a pointless or misleading act).

Hanover

Wow. Beautiful. Considering it on a logical level, though, I feel like You are reducing G-d to morality rather than vice-versa. In other words, from what You said, it should follow that G-d is merely an easier name for whatever You call the system of morality the governs Your life. Thus, G-d's reaction becomes irrelevant; we are just computers and the program we follow is G-d or morality or whatever You want to call it. An interesting idea. — David

I think I'm making God and good synonymous as opposed to reducing one or the other. It's consistent with my very expansive reading of the commandment against idolatry, which I take as a prohibition against objectifying him in any way. That would include considering him a thing of any sort. But I suppose that's an aside. Yes, God is goodness, and the goodness exists, but I think it's meaningless to ask where goodness physically exists, and I disagree that goodness waited around for some guy to be smart enough to create it.

am I doing this forum right? — David

You are, but as a practical matter, do whatever you want. That's what I do.

On Your end, how can You know that worshipping (as You understand it) G-d is actually causing G-d to feel worshipped? What I mean to say is that the G-d You happen to pray to is one whom You could never know how to pray to? Doesn't that make prayer feel useless? — David

Your capitalization of "You" is odd by the way. I agree, worship makes no sense. I don't even fully understand it under a traditional religious view. It would seem that God needn't be asked, but that strikes me as another question.

BC

Your capitalization of "You" is odd by the way — Hanover

Perhaps David is confusing You with G-d, which is really odd.

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Hanover

That's the very reason to say God does not exist. Or rather cannot exist. The significance of such value is the infinite, something beyond the whim and change of the world, that which means and matters regardless of what happens in the world.

Attributing this to an existing god puts it into the same position as human will: it is made a function of some state of the world, which may pass or be destroyed - replaced even - by the whim of some other existing god, to knock him off or grab the attention of believers. God is nothing more than another person in this situation, a whim which get's to decide value until the next whim of power replaces it, an utter contradiction with the infinity of value.

DrFazeus

why we shouldn't act in an attempt to make any kind of divine force happy — David

Say a divine force really and truly exist, isn't it by virtue of definition that the divine force doesn't need anyone to make he/she/it happy?
If I were a divine force thing, then I better know how to make me happy, no? If not, I don't see the divinity and force in that entity.

David

Your capitalization of "You" is odd by the way. I agree, worship makes no sense. I don't even fully understand it under a traditional religious view. It would seem that God needn't be asked, but that strikes me as another question. — Hanover

Perhaps David is confusing You with G-d, which is really odd. — Bitter Crank

Hahahaha. I just figure there's something overly egotistical in capitalizing the word "I" and not "You"

Janus

↪David

The reason for the capitalization of "I" is that you can use it to refer to one and only one person, whereas 'you' can refer to everyone but yourself.

David

So it is a proper noun in a sense? Nonetheless, when I say You, I am talking explicitly to You (Doesn't it make You feel just a little bit special?). In my mind, it's equivalent to John (and it would undoubtedly be rude to capitalize David and not John). Nonetheless, that's good insight. I guess I'll hence refrain from capitalization when I'm talking about a general, non-specific "you".

anonymous66

If I could be convinced there was a benevolent Creator who was telling me about certain things I could do to improve myself and/or live an objectively better life, then wouldn't it be silly not to listen?

The way the OP presents it, it's more like he wants us to believe there is a tyrannical God who just makes demands. "do this if you want to please me...if you don't please me, there will be consequences." I don't know of any evidence that a God like that exists.

The OP needs to convince me that he knows there is a God and that he knows what this God wants before I can engage in a conversation about how I feel about this God.

If there is no evidence that a God wants anything from us, then I think the title of this thread is right. God doesn't matter.

G-d Doesn't Matter?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions