In Gods We Trust(?)

[Username17]

What makes you think it's limited to humans?

Humans - to the best of my knowledge - are the only creatures who can take simple cause and effect relationships and turn it into a complex system of higher beings that may or may not exist.

What you linked to was essentially the same as the athlete who doesn't wash his socks during the playoffs. I get that - it's the same method by which I train my seven month old to function (When you're sitting down and not screaming, you get to have a bite of Mom's ice cream). It's not the creation of a divine entity that may or may not have your personal welfare in mind. I don't understand why the ability to make that leap from one behavior to the other evolved. I don't understand the evolutionary benefits of having done so.

The behaviors aren't different. You do a dance and it rains, and you keep doing the dance when you want it to rain.

The only thing that makes humans special in the religious stupidity department is how much better we are at teaching behaviors from one generation to another. We observe that a squirrel who runs around a tree three times and has a tasty nut fall next to him is quite likely to decide to run three times around other trees and look up for the rest of its life. We can infer that the squirrel may believe that the dance pleases some sort of invisible tree squirrel. Some of them doubtless have other explanations. But it doesn't really matter because squirrels don't teach their explanations and behaviors to the next generation very effectively.

However, humans do. And now we get into the idea of falsifiability. Because people carry their interpretations of the world with them until they have a reason to change them. And they teach their ideas to their children and to other people as truth. Truth which then gets carried on and passed to future generations and so on.

Which basically means that when someone randomly comes up with an idea to explain something and that idea is not falsifiable, that there is no reason for it to not continue to spread from generation to generation. From person to person. The same powers that allow us to uncover the patterns of the seasons and share this information with our children causes junk memes to accumulate in our collective knowledge base. It's a very powerful evolutionary system. But periodically it comes up with the idea of "goddidit" and it is very difficult to clean that kind of meme out of the system.

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

Right, because all those Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Romans, Norse, Greeks, Eastern Buddhists, ect. They don't believe in personal gods.

Right, because "probably" means "certainly", and all those religions have an equal emphasis on a personal relationship with a personal god. Also, the reason we have the word "god" and the word "divine" is because "god" is a noun and "divine" is an adjective. Perhaps you were thinking of "deity"?

Let's rewind a bit and try to get out of this semantic dead-end. Ganbare said "Rational thinkers are inherently biased against concepts such as deities and religion". If pantheism and deism are included in those concepts, it's entirely reasonable to bring up pantheistic or deistic rational thinkers as counterexamples to Ganbare's claim. If Ganbare thinks that pantheism and deism are compatible with rational thought, then that is also interesting, and may highlight some common ground.

[Kaelik]

Right, because "probably" means "certainly", and all those religions have an equal emphasis on a personal relationship with a personal god. Also, the reason we have the word "god" and the word "divine" is because "god" is a noun and "divine" is an adjective. Perhaps you were thinking of "deity"?

The Divine, is a noun. Whether or not one has a relationship with that personal god is irrespective of it being a personal god. Personal god means a being with a consciousness and intelligence. God also means those things. Personal God is redundant. If your "God" is not personal, not an entity, then it is not a god, but a force, or a trait or whatever.

Let's rewind a bit and try to get out of this semantic dead-end. Ganbare said "Rational thinkers are inherently biased against concepts such as deities and religion". If pantheism and deism are included in those concepts, it's entirely reasonable to bring up pantheistic or deistic rational thinkers as counterexamples to Ganbare's claim. If Ganbare thinks that pantheism and deism are compatible with rational thought, then that is also interesting, and may highlight some common ground.

I would absolutely disagree with Ganbare that rational thinkers are inherently biased against ect. there are many people who are not rational, and I would argue those irrational people are biased towards the god/religion. But rationality itself is not biased against them.

This is because, as mentioned earlier, I do not consider rationality to be a description of how someone comes to first principles, and in fact, think all derivations of first principles are arbitrary, even if they are arbitrarily made and correct. (by arbitrary I mean they come from outside rational thought, perhaps they are based on what you want to be true, perhaps on what seems to be true, perhaps on biologically ingrained desires.)

I am only addressing "God" because that is specifically what ck claimed Einstein rationally believed. If he had claimed that Einstein thought religion could be rationally thought about, I would never have intervened.

Pantheism is not a belief about god. Deism is. However, if you believe something created that universe but that thing is not conscious, then you are not a deist, because that thing not being conscious means it is not a god.

[Username17]

because that thing not being conscious means it is not a god.

Disagree!



-Username17

[Maj]

The behaviors aren't different. You do a dance and it rains, and you keep doing the dance when you want it to rain.

There is a very big difference between failing to wash your gym shorts because the last time you didn't wash them, you won a game, and extrapolating from that that there must therefore be a little man who sits on your shoulder and makes sure that - because you didn't wash said gym shorts - he will make sure to guides the ball through the basketball hoop.

There is a very big difference between dancing every time you want it to rain, and speculating that the reason why it rains when you dance is because the magical cloud fairy really likes to see you dancing.

That difference is the line between a superstition and a religion.

[Kaelik]

The behaviors aren't different. You do a dance and it rains, and you keep doing the dance when you want it to rain.

There is a very big difference between failing to wash your gym shorts because the last time you didn't wash them, you won a game, and extrapolating from that that there must therefore be a little man who sits on your shoulder and makes sure that - because you didn't wash said gym shorts - he will make sure to guides the ball through the basketball hoop.

There is a very big difference between dancing every time you want it to rain, and speculating that the reason why it rains when you dance is because the magical cloud fairy really likes to see you dancing.

That difference is the line between a superstition and a religion.

It's not a meaningful difference. Human beings see many things that are caused by agents, IE animals and other humans, rather then by forces.

If you don't know what is causing something to occur, you are either going to think about it in terms of agents or in terms of forces. If the thing happened solely by chance, then the idea that a force causes you to win again is just as wrong, and just as likely to be the thought you come up with as the idea that an outside agent interfered.

If the squirrel thinks that it is a natural trait of trees to drop nuts when circles are run around them, that is not any more wrong then the idea of an invisible squirrel that is happy. And there is no reason that thinking one of those things makes more sense then the other.

[Maj]

If you don't know what is causing something to occur, you are either going to think about it in terms of agents or in terms of forces.

My point was that to the best of our knowledge, humans are the only creatures that can think like this. There is a difference between behavioral reinforcement and the supposition that there's a higher force that has control over your life.

[MartinHarper]

Whether or not one has a relationship with that personal god is irrespective of it being a personal god. Personal god means a being with a consciousness and intelligence. God also means those things. Personal God is redundant. If your "God" is not personal, not an entity, then it is not a god, but a force, or a trait or whatever.

When Einstein says things like this:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/einstein.htm

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality.

I don't think he is being redundant by saying "personal God" rather than just "God". I think he meant something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

A Personal god is a deity that is, and can be related to as, a person. ... God is conceived and described as being a personal creator, with a purpose for the creation ... and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and jealousy), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person.

You are of course welcome to your preferred definition of "god" and "personal god". What makes you think Einstein shared that definition?

[Kaelik]

I don't think he is being redundant by saying "personal God" rather than just "God". I think he meant something like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god

A Personal god is a deity that is, and can be related to as, a person. ... God is conceived and described as being a personal creator, with a purpose for the creation ... and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and jealousy), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person.

Huh wuh huh? So in other words, personal god doesn't mean an actual entity with intentions and thoughts, but it actually means an actual entity with intentions and thoughts?

That's exactly what I said. Einstein doesn't believe in god as a conscious intent being. That's what a "god" is. If it doesn't have intentions, it's not a god.

[Orion]

Frank -- what is the point of demolishing a God which absolutely no one claims to believe in.

None what so ever. Except that people seriously do believe in a truly omnipotent god. If you grab a random religious person off the street and ask them if there is anything their god can't do (specifically as opposed to won't do), the vast majority of them will say "No."

Do you seriously think this is because their opinion is wrong or because they misunderstand the question--look, I know a lot of religious believers (like a lot nonbelievers for the outraged)--have only very fuzzy ideas about what they believe, which is a big problem. But seriously, if you didn't make it a trick question but asked it the honest way: "Is your god capable of things which are logically contradictory" I think you'd get a different result.

[MartinHarper]

So in other words, personal god doesn't mean an actual entity with intentions and thoughts, but it actually means an actual entity with intentions and thoughts?

I can conceive of a creator that is conscious and godlike, but is not a person, nor can it be related to as a person. It does not have a humanly comprehensible purpose for its creation, nor does it possess human emotions or motives, nor other characteristics of a human person. I would describe such a creator as an impersonal god.

If it doesn't have intentions, it's not a god.

As I say, you are welcome to your definition of "god".

[PhoneLobster]

But seriously, if you didn't make it a trick question but asked it the honest way: "Is your god capable of things which are logically contradictory" I think you'd get a different result.

Really?

Are you sure?

Personally I would be surprised to see a 10% shift in the results.

Indeed in my experience you can sit down and do the whole "omnipotence is contradictory thing" and the ONLY response religious people give is "My god is so fucking uber he can just ignore logic and all your scenarios because his powers are not only beyond YOUR and MY understanding but in fact beyond ALL understanding".

[Kaelik]

My point was that to the best of our knowledge, humans are the only creatures that can think like this. There is a difference between behavioral reinforcement and the supposition that there's a higher force that has control over your life.

And you are wrong. To the best of our knowledge, all sorts of animals from Apes to Octupi treat things as coming from agents and from forces. And these things that think in those terms must almost certainly think that one or the other is the cause of an event they do not directly know the answer to.

If a person punches a Chimp, it recognizes that as an agent. If something falls on it's head when it shakes a tree, it realizes that is something entirely different from the agent punching it earlier.

If you arrange a water spray every time the Chimp climbs a latter, it will think of that as a force, not an agent, even though it's actually wrong in that a person might be pushing the button.

If a Chimp is given a new situation, in which both seem plausible, then it makes just as much sense to attribute to an agent as it does a force.

I can conceive of a creator that is conscious and godlike, but is not a person, nor can it be related to as a person. It does not have a humanly comprehensible purpose for its creation, nor does it possess human emotions or motives, nor other characteristics of a human person. I would describe such a creator as an impersonal god.

Now remove the word human from that entire paragraph, because no one is claiming that humans need to be able to comprehend, or that it must be human like.

"I can conceive of a person who is Frank Trollman like who does not play or design RPGs, is not studying to be a doctor, was born in africa, believes in a magic sky daddy who takes care of him when he dies, and does not believe in an objective reality. I would describe such a person as a imTrollman like Frank."

See, when you describe a being that has the exact opposite qualities, it no longer fits the definition.

If something is not conscious, does not have purposes, and does not have motivations, then that thing is not a god. It's a damn force.

As I say, you are welcome to your definition of "god".

MartinHarper: If something is compromised entirely or mostly of Hydrogen and Oxygen in a specific (liquid) pattern, then it is water.

Kaelik: As I say, you are welcome to your definition of "water," but to me, if it emits light, then it must be water.

[Maj]

If you arrange a water spray every time the Chimp climbs a latter, it will think of that as a force, not an agent, even though it's actually wrong in that a person might be pushing the button.

How can we tell the difference between an animal associating the action of doing a dance with a result, and an animal associating doing a dance with a result caused by an outside force?

If I push a button and a light turns on every time, there is absolutely no reason for me to assume that there's a demon in the wall who turns on the light for me whenever I push the button. As far as I'm concerned, I'm controlling the light. And when I want it to go on, I'll push the button.

What, in experimental results, demonstrates that an animal is looking for the demon in the wall?

Nothing that I can determine.

Children learn exactly this way. The first time my son reached out and played Tarzan with my hair, it was funny. I laughed. My son likes it when I laugh, so what did he do? He played Tarzan with my hair again. The problem is that it's only funny the first time. The second time, it's just cute. The third time, it's getting to be annoying. The fourth time, it's aggravating. The fifth time, I start getting angry.

At no point has my son demonstrated that he believes anything other than he's in control of my reaction. He pulled my hair, and I laughed. I reinforced his behavior. In his mind, there's really no reason it shouldn't work a second time, and his belief in his own control is what makes him do it again.

[Crissa]

I really fail to see how your description of behaviors extrapolates to negating a god source for unexplained phenomena.

If the only times your son ever saw you laugh was when someone was pulling your hair, and you laughed and no one was pulling your hair, are you saying it would not be expected for him to wonder why he couldn't see the person pulling your hair?

A god is merely an unseen or not understood force filling in the gap where you do not have knowledge.

-Crissa

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I can conceive of a creator that is conscious and godlike, but is not a person, nor can it be related to as a person. It does not have a humanly comprehensible purpose for its creation, nor does it possess human emotions or motives, nor other characteristics of a human person. I would describe such a creator as an impersonal god.

Now remove the word human from that entire paragraph, because no one is claiming that humans need to be able to comprehend, or that it must be human like.

Nobody except Wikipedia.

A Personal god is a deity that is, and can be related to as, a person. ... God is conceived and described as being a personal creator, with a purpose for the creation ... and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and jealousy), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person.

Since we've never encountered a real sentient alien species, we generally mean "human being" when we say "person." So presumably, a "personal god" under this definition must somewhat resemble a human being.

[Kaelik]

Since we've never encountered a real sentient alien species, we generally mean "human being" when we say "person." So presumably, a "personal god" under this definition must somewhat resemble a human being.

That's frankly ridiculous. We've never met an alien species, so when we say alien species we really mean people from another country.

Personal is different from human like. If something is human like, it has various human attributes that are not part of the definition of person. If it is personal, then it must have those things that make it a person, IE must be an entity, have consciousness, have intentions and purpose, but it does not mean that it must have humanly comprehendable purposes, or human like consciousness, or human emotions.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

But if its purposes, consciousness, and emotions aren't human-like, then how are we supposed to "relate to it as a person"?

[Username17]

If you don't know what is causing something to occur, you are either going to think about it in terms of agents or in terms of forces.

My point was that to the best of our knowledge, humans are the only creatures that can think like this. There is a difference between behavioral reinforcement and the supposition that there's a higher force that has control over your life.

That's wrong. In fact, that's fucking retarded to believe that.

When a dog finds tracks and follows them, it assumes that the tracks were made by an animal. There are many completely natural effects that dogs treat like they were animals as well. The fact that the dog can't tell you what they think is going on in linguistic terms does not mean that they don't believe in animals that don't exist. It's demonstrable that they do.

Your brand of human exceptionalism is extremely stupid.

-Username17

[MartinHarper]

Kaelik, your definition of "god" is not universal. For example:

Pantheism ... is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent God. In pantheism the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent.

Pantheism: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

[quote="Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]Pantheism ... is the view that (1) "God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature" (Owen 1971: 74). ... {Pantheism} is the belief in one God, a God identical to the all-inclusive unity, but pantheists (generally) do not believe God is a person or anything like a person.[/quote]

So, I will continue to use my definition in this conversation and in others.

Indeed in my experience you can sit down and do the whole "omnipotence is contradictory thing" and the ONLY response religious people give is "My god is so fucking uber he can just ignore logic and all your scenarios because his powers are not only beyond YOUR and MY understanding but in fact beyond ALL understanding".

For what it's worth, I have a Christian girlfriend in seminary, and asked her the question. To summarise her response, she says she doesn't know, but that her God certainly might do something that appears illogical to us because we are working from assumptions about, for example, causality, that are not true for God.

If something is human like, it has various human attributes that are not part of the definition of person.

Dictionaries disagree with you on this matter too:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

[PhoneLobster]

To summarise her response, she says she doesn't know, but that her God certainly might do something that appears illogical to us because we are working from assumptions about, for example, causality, that are not true for God.

So in other words, her definition of omnipotence, that she believes in, and if she is in seminary is planning to waste her entire life on happens to entirely include logical impossibilities exactly like the ones described by the anti omnipotence crowd.

This leads me to two points.

1) The anti omnipotence crowd aren't the one putting words in the mouths of Christians, the "omnipotence doesn't let you do anything stupid and no one really believes that" are the ones who are alternately putting in words or misrepresenting a minority view as the beliefs held by the majority of self described religious people.

2) If this girl doesn't know the answer to a question as simple as that is she SURE she's in the right line of work? That's like asking a would be hooker at a tertiary education level hooker training institution about her opinions on STDs and her responding with "what are those?".

[Voss]

The behaviors aren't different. You do a dance and it rains, and you keep doing the dance when you want it to rain.

There is a very big difference between failing to wash your gym shorts because the last time you didn't wash them, you won a game, and extrapolating from that that there must therefore be a little man who sits on your shoulder and makes sure that - because you didn't wash said gym shorts - he will make sure to guides the ball through the basketball hoop.

There is a very big difference between dancing every time you want it to rain, and speculating that the reason why it rains when you dance is because the magical cloud fairy really likes to see you dancing.

That difference is the line between a superstition and a religion.

A snobbish white guy explaining the difference between what 'savages' believe and what he believes? Because thats the only line between the two I'm aware of.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The behaviors aren't different. You do a dance and it rains, and you keep doing the dance when you want it to rain.

There is a very big difference between failing to wash your gym shorts because the last time you didn't wash them, you won a game, and extrapolating from that that there must therefore be a little man who sits on your shoulder and makes sure that - because you didn't wash said gym shorts - he will make sure to guides the ball through the basketball hoop.

There is a very big difference between dancing every time you want it to rain, and speculating that the reason why it rains when you dance is because the magical cloud fairy really likes to see you dancing.

That difference is the line between a superstition and a religion.

A snobbish white guy explaining the difference between what 'savages' believe and what he believes? Because thats the only line between the two I'm aware of.

Maybe that's how it looks to a snobbish internet personality claiming that "savages" don't believe in personifications of forces.