Crazy little thing called God:
In ancient times, unusual physical events apparently scared the shit out of the locals, even the local philosophers. Events like lightning, earthquakes, meteors, floods and things of that nature prompted fears and speculations about the wrath of some critter, a critter much more powerful than ourselves, that suffered petty jealousy and fits of rage. The goal, assuming such a being, becomes appeasement. That is a highly rational belief. Bad things are bad. It’s worth investigating ways to avoid them. It’s probably why Richard Simmons became a celebrity.
___________
But the story of God also includes the effects of such natural pharmaceuticals as the psilocybin content in certain mushrooms, the mescaline content of certain cacti and many other wonderful things. The ingestion of these substances to differing degrees produces highly altered states of consciousness with a notable continuity of experience between them. That experience often leads to novel understanding which, to the ancient tripper, needed a name also. Maybe the two issues were somehow related.
__________
Finally, the ever present nasty knowledge of our own mortality added a nut to the trail mix. Now we have a god who is a creature which occasionally brings great calamity, a known alternative universe and the need for some experiential continuity bridging the state of alive with the state of dead. Add in some mumbo jumbo by a priest trying to impress a girl or claim a mandate for leadership and you have the stew from which a God is born. Sort of like Aphrodite born of the simmering foam, arriving on a chunk of potato and waving a hunk of meat menacingly.
————————————————-
Eventually, each of those issues became known to be the result of ‘ordinary’ physical and biological processes. The God that used to explain data received through the senses, rationally explain I should add, ceased to explain those phenomena any more. The deeper mysteries still allow for a God as explanation but the rational tag doesn’t fit so well any more. Now that God doesn’t explain any of its original activity, we hold onto the idea simply because it is an idea, not because it’s a good idea. The common parlance for that behavior is “God of the gaps”. God suddenly loses any relevance. This God cannot be appeased because it doesn’t interact. It’s like trying to appease arithmetic.
_______________
Our perceptions are what they are. We learned to measure most of them. Explanations for those perceptions however, change with experience. The God explanation has so far failed in every case to account for an event in our perceived universe. So, where a rational person once posited a God with the burden of proof on an unbeliever to proffer a better explanation, that burden was met in every single case until we get what we have now. The activity became a game of hunt for the gaps and fill them with knowledge, knowledge in all cases replacing God. There is also another word for what knowledge replaces.
______________
At any rate, clearly the burden was met and now has shifted to the believer to explain what the heck God is and does. It is not rational to believe in something which has no measureable effect, is odorless, colorless, tasteless, massless, chargeless and above all pointless.
So, unless this god has an attribute that matters to us here, in this universe, pointing to the universe and doing things like claiming an unmoved mover or some ineffable je ne sais quoi is merely masturbation to the memory of a lost lover. The argument means nothing because the mover has no qualities other than that it came first. Aspice, officio fungeris sine spe honoris amplioris.
Some say love, it is a river, but it isn’t a river. It’s an emotion or a complex mix of emotions. Some say God, it is a flower, but what good does that do? What’s wrong with the word ‘flower’? People tend to use a lot of words to get around the fact that any definition of God which doesn’t run into the problem of stupidity immediately faces the challenge of irrelevance.
In other words, just give one concrete attribute and defend it. All knowing? All loving? All powerful? A matter of any relevance whatsoever? None of the preceding have managed to hold up under scrutiny (although I am happy to go ahead and go through the motions if you like). What can a disembodied mind do? Can it turn water into wine? Can it drive a plexiglass wedge through an ocean to allow some nomads to escape an army? Can it feed the slavering crowd on a bagel and some lox? Does it have desire? Does it have goals? Is that consistent with all knowing and all powerful? Is this just a run-around? I guess I have to throw the teleologimacal argument in the same trash bin. Without a definition, the argument is empty. With a definition, the argument is unnecessary.
So, even though clearly our universe is big, really big, and even though we are little and tiny compared to the big, really big, universe, and even though the grand order of things exceeds our knowledge, our word ‘God’ is only a placeholder and has no actual meaning when examined. What we used to call God, we now have different and more specific words for. Gravity, electromagnetism, air pressure, chemistry and ideas like that replaced the entire dictionary of definitions we used to use for God. At this point it is clear that the personal deity idea was bunk. It is only still rational to believe in such a creature if the believer is ignorant of the bulk of human learning over the past 400 years. Given access to elementary education and the internet, the belief is either not rational or not relevant. You choose. 
Perhaps someone can explain to me what they mean by God.
I think I’m starting to understand you now.
Now bear with me here as this following talk about gravity has nothing to do with gravity.
Gravity, to physicists, could be be termed an “objective” phenomena as the interactions between masses is well understood and predictable. To a person however, the experience of gravity is subjective as it is dependent on other conditions, such as other masses and motion.
While gravity here and on Jupiter works the same, your experience of gravity on Jupiter would be much different than here on Earth. It’s impact on a society on Jupiter would completely alter the way they lived their lives. Workdays might consist of eight 3 minute work periods in an eight hour day and there would definitely be no dancing!
Consider also that we don’t know, without more data, whether something I label “Mass A” will alter its position more than “Mass B” when they come close enough to each other to have a sigificant attraction. If I add “Mass C”, I alter the motion of all three.
So while gravity itself is “scientifically” absolute, the effects of gravity are very much subject to the masses involved.
That is how I believe morality works between humans. If you live in a very harsh environment, it might be considered moral to take 4 or 5 wives simply due to the mortality rate in that environment. Taking multiple partners might be something you “ought” to do.
Your absolute good, if you want to compare it to gravity, would have different effects in different circumstances.
I agree that many – if not most – “oughts” we can derive are conditional, meaning subjective to circumstances. What they cannot be held as conditional to, however, is “whim” or “personal taste” or “might”.
Some moral statements are self-evidently, universally true and are not “derived”, but are rather axiomatically accepted; some are necessarily true (necessary inferences from self-evident moral truths); some are contingent (conditional) upon circumstance, some are generally true. One doesn’t have to have instruction from a church or a book to figure out the basics of good morality; they are as accessible and as inescapable as good rules concerning gravity.
My point is that all the other “subjective” premises for morality end up problematic; consensual, by authority, by might, by whim. Unless one’s premise is that the good is objective, they really have no foundation by which to challenge or argue “what is moral” under any circumstances – other than just applying rhetoric in order to gain support.
The problem is in order to figure out the basics of good morality, you need to have some sort of objective guidance. Whose guidance do we accept? If we do it ourselves, then figuring out the absolute good is subjective. If we accept guidance, then we have subjectively selected a guide.
There is no way to escape subjectivity. You can’t find the objective good if you exercise your own free will to find it.
You don’t “figure out” the basics of morality; they are as self-evident as self-evident statements about gravity.
Once again, because we subjectively interpret or subjectively experience everything is irrelevant; we must assume some things we subjectively experience exist objectively.
We can either believe that thet term “gravity” represents something that exists objectively, or we can believe the term represents an entirely subjective phenomena.
If it exists objectively, we can find self-evidently true statements about it on our own (meaning: without any supposed authority figure or manual), which would be the “basics of morality”.
More than that, though: if one believes that “good” is an objective commodity for all humans at all times (whether or not we can “figure it out”), logically one must premise that a “god” as “creator of humans for a purpose” must exist, otherwise an “objective good” (final cause, purpose) cannot exist for humans to inform morality (how we “ought” to behave”).
The term “gravity” describes a “subjective” experience of an effect caused by the “objective” attraction of two masses. Because we have proven this with moon landings and the Mars rovers, it is not “rational” to view “gravity” as being anything other than subjective. The physical attraction between two objects is an entirely different matter.
No, we have proven that “gravity”, while being a subjective experience, does not exist objectively at all. The attraction of two masses may be a constant, but even that attraction is not a thing that exists objectively. The two objects exist, but not the effect they have on each other.
You have taken “gravity” as an example of something that is self-evident, and it isn’t.
Neither is morality. If invaders from another kingdom try to invade mine and I impale a thousand innocent peasants on the border, was that an immoral act if it saves a million other innocents by causing the invaders to change their minds about invading?
I always find it odd that a subjectivist will argue as if my statements can be objectively discerned to be true or false, and make claims of fact as if their claims about what is “subjective” is objectively true.
Why should he have decided beforehand how we should behave?
Maybe the whole purpose of life is to be the only combination of matter that has free will.
If that is the case, why restrict that free will in any way?
I don’t make “objective” claims since I am “subject” to my experiences of existence just as you are “subject” to yours.
Neil Armstrong has had two different “subjective” experiences of gravity. When on the moon he felt as light as a feather but when he got back to Earth, he felt as heavy as lead.
The “law of gravity” hadn’t changed at all.
William J Murray,
//***************************************
If invaders from another kingdom try to invade mine and I impale a thousand innocent peasants on the border, was that an immoral act if it saves a million other innocents by causing the invaders to change their minds about invading?
//*************************************
Toronto,
Once again your contributions amount to nothing more than rhetoric (since you are not even claiming my statements are true or false, but only that you dislike them), which I am not interested in addressing.
You dislike my statements. I get that. So?
Is that an objective claim of fact about what Neil Armstrong experienced? Or are you just subjectively making statements that are impossible to discern as true or false?
Even though you deny it, every post you make implies that something you say be taken as objectively true. You argue from the premise that some things are objectively true and that they can be discerned as such by humans whether you recognize this or not. It is plainly evident in your posts.
Armstrong and all the other astronauts provided empirical data that “gravity” is subjective. As you watch the film, you can see their feet leave the ground on the moon for seconds at a time.
When you try this on Earth, you don’t get the same results, i.e., “air-time”.
They might even try to claim that the effects of gravity were identical, but we can see on film, that gravity is subject to locale.
That is empirical data, not me trying to “subjectively” insert an opinion. We have it on film.
Who was the subject?
>>>Neil Armstrong.
Did he experience gravity differently than someone on Earh?
>>>Yes
Is this something I arrived at “subjectively”.
>>> You tell me.
No, it means that the two of us can only make subjective statements.
If they are somehow objectively true, only your god may know.
You and I are fallible humans.
No, my premise is that both of us are constrained by our subjective experiences.
I have never argued that I or anyone else can determine any objective truth.
Tha’s why I am arguing against your position that you can.
It should be plainly evident from this post that that is what I mean.
I don’t dislike your statements, I’m saying you can’t prove that they are valid.
From the point-of-view of a human, there are things that we will never experience. To try and claim that our conclusions of the unknown based on our experiences, are more valid than someone else’s conclusion based on their different experiences, is not rational.
Is empirical data subjectively gathered or objectively gathered? Can objectively true statements be made about such data? Should I take your claims about such things as objectively true, or just subjective feelings and impressions you have?
Is anything that you say here based on your empirical interaction with Neil Armstrong, or did you just subjectively gather it from 2nd-hand and 3rd hand sources? “When we see on film” .. is that based on the idea that the film exists objectively and that we will agree that what it portrays objectively true facts?
You cannot escape your “no-objective-truths-are-available” subjectivist conundrum, Toronto. Whether you admit it or not, and no matter how you try to word it, all arguments and debates are founded upon the assumption that objectively true statements not only exist, but that we can discern them. Your reference to “empirical” data as if such data is “true” demonstrates this.
Are you making claims of fact about what your data indicates and what I “must” interpret it as, or am I free to subjectively dismiss your empirical data as worthless and not meaning at all what you wish it meant?
Under subjectivism, I am under no obligation to accept “empiricism” as anything other than subjective experiences of subjective phenomena that may or may not have any relationship to me and my experience.
If that is the petard you wish to skewer my argument by, it skewers your position as well – and any other position. It is self-defeating.
But as a subjectivist you cannot claim whether or not I (or anyone else) can objectively discern true statements because you have no way of knowing what my capacities or limitations are, and “subjectivity” would only be binding for me (and others) if it was objectively true that all humans (me included) can only subjectively experience things.
By asserting that I am limited to subjectivism, you are making a claim of objective fact.
IOW, you are asserting that “subjectivity” is an objectively binding condition on me (and everyone else), instead of just accepting that it is the state of affairs you happen to exist under.
If you were a rationally consistent subjectivist, you’d accept that you have no grounds by which to argue anything at all about the existential nature of other people, nor any way to argue whether or not what they say is true or false.
And yet, here you are, doing exactly that, and attempting to walk it back when it is pointed out to you.
And yet, you just did.
Good thing you don’t claim to be rational.
You are claiming that your conclusions (of the limitation of subjectivism) are more valid than my conclusions (of being capable of discerning objectively true statements), so by your means of judgement, you are not being rational.
You’ve written a lot of posts. I’ve been looking through them to see whether you back up this claim anywhere. I haven’t found it yet. Can you help me out?
For the purposes of argument, I’m going to agree with one of your premises, that some things are self-evidently true.
I believe it is self-evident, that no one human being knows everything.
Logically then, since we don’t know everything in the first place, there is no way of knowing what knowledge is missing.
Therefore, there is know way of making any sort of objective statement about anything, since that may be the very subject where our knowledge is lacking.
Therefore, since we cannot make objective decisions, any decision we make is purely subjective.
Therefore, we cannot know if god and an “absolute good” exist.
For the sake of fair disclosure, I should confess that I lean toward the opinion that God does for epistemology what giant turtles do for astrophysics.
A complete explanation would probably take several books to exhaustively go over the reasoning. They have been summed up elsewhere as the argument from first/sufficient cause, the argument from morality, and the ongoing philosophical argumenta concerning free will.
It would probably be better to pick one and explore the premise and counter-premises to see where they lead.
You argue that as if you can use logical inferences and deduction to discern true statements that necessarily stem from a premise.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Is it gaint turtles all the way down, or just until we run into Atlas?
Yes, I’ve used your premise to prove you wrong.
Ironic, isn’t it?
It would be if true. Unfortunately, by your own argument, there’s no way to know.
To paraphrase all of your arguments: “You can discern from this argument that true statements cannot be discerned” is a self-refuting argument. You are contradicting yourself each and every post.
Then it’s a good thing I didn’t use my argument, I used yours to prove you wrong.
Of course you can always show me the flaw in your argument if there is one and I’ll stop using it too.
Since it is I that am making the claim that you are wrong , it is a subjective claim
You still have an argument you can make that I will accept as proof that you are right and I am wrong.
Simply prove to me that you are infallible.
This would be proof that the statements you make are not subjective opinion but rather, absolute fact.
Because my knowledge of X is incomplete doesn’t mean I cannot make true statements about those aspects of X which I do know. I don’t know what the molecular structure of my shirt is, where it was made, how it was made, or even what it is made of; I can truthfully say that my shirt fits me.
Your idea that truthful statements cannot be made about X unless one has absolute knowledge of X is a non-sequitur.
The fact that this question is naturally raised reveals the problem.
You do understand that “they have been summed up elsewhere” won’t really cut it here, right?
Murray:
I can truthfully say that my shirt fits me.
You can truthfully say that in your opinion your shirt fits you. Your spouse, your child, your valet, or your tailor may have a different opinion.
All knowledge is provisional.
Today’s truthful statement is tomorrow’s correction.
That’s the way science works and its been doing a good job.
God-based statements don’t tend to change with new knowledge which is why we have people who still believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, a global flood and Intelligent Design.
That’s why I said that instead of asking for a novel, you can pick one in particular.
I can truthfully say the shirt has 2 sleeves, then.
I’m not making a science-based argument.
Is that a true statement? You keep refuting yourself.
“You can discern from my argument the true statement that true statements cannot be discerned from arguments” is a self-contradictory argument – and always will be, in every universe.
//———————————————————-
Since the only kind of statement I CAN make is subjective, it is also provisional and not necessarily true at all.
Anyone who is infallible though, can make statements that are true.
Are you infallible?
If I believed I could discern truth in accordance with your claims on this blog, I would be on your side.
It would appear however, that I disagree with your beliefs as evidenced by the many disagreements I have had with you.
I subjectively believe my position, which is not yours, is the correct one.
You can prove me wrong with proof of your infallibility, otherwise, your position is as subjective as mine.
Unless you are positing this assertion as a true statement, I have no reason to address it.
Toronto said both of the following in this thread:
I can truthfully say the shirt has 2 sleeves, then.
Your claim about your shirt is an empirical proposition. You may think it’s true, but you may be deluded, and other observers might report that you are looking at a sleeveless undershirt. Experience tells us that the “truth” of empirical statements is subject to confirmation.
Yes, both statements are “in my subjective opinion”, correct and not mutually exclusive.
The first statement is a response to your claim that logic can discern true statements about the existence of god. My position is that your claims about the unknown, “god”, “absolute truth”, and the “purpose of our existence” are no more valid than mine or anyone else’s. To claim that your subjective opinion of the unknown is more valid than my subjective opinion of the unknown is irrational, since neither of us know anything about the “unknown”.
The second statement is also “in my subjective opinion”, correct.
Why would I ever believe that my opinion about a position where we differ, would be the one that is wrong?
And the so-called “empirical confirmation” may be a delusion. So?
The point is, there are some things we must posit as being objectively true, and other things we derive that we must also view as being objectively true, because even if we make statements about how “we” are subjective entities, and how “all” sense data is subjective, those are themselves de facto claims of objective truth.
Going all hyperskeptical just to avoid admitting that we must make these assumptions of objective reality is just a means to derail the debate and drags the argument into sophistry.
The debate isn’t “if” we must make assumptions and derivations about what we hold as objectively true (we must), but rather if such assumptions can be grounded meaningfully without also assuming the existence of a god.
As we have seen in this debate, the lack of such necessary grounding and premises allows people to enter self-contradictory positions and offer self-contradictory arguments because they have no basis that dictates proper logical inferences and conclusions.
This is what happens when one doesn’t fully consider their premises and grounding for said premises. People end up saying things like: “Any argument that finds one argument less valid than another is irrational.” or “The only way to check to see if an empirical experience is not a delusion is to check it with more empirical experience.” – not even realizing the absurdity of such statements.
I think it would be fairer to say that you believe you must. Some of us have working assumptions that we discard if observation and shared experience prove those assumptions not useful.
Or indeed with assuming…which you have yet to demonstrate. I note you remarked somewhere amongst your comments that the assumption of the existence of one deity necessarily excludes all others from existence. How so?
And which one do you pick and why?
Who said that?
Here’s the closest thing I could find:
Is that the one you’re referring to?
I’ll give you an example where I believe you are wrong.
You’re flying your private plane and suddenly you’re inside a cloud. You have no visual, (empirical evidence), but you still have your inner ear, (empirical evidence).
You think you’re flying straight and level but your artificial horizon, (empirical evidence), says you’re nose high. All of a sudden you hear the stall warning horn, (empirical evidence), confirming your nose-high attitude.
You push your nose down and prevent having to go through a very hard landing.
We have evaluated and compared three different pieces of empirical evidence to come to our conclusion that our empirical inner ear evidence couldn’t be trusted..
,
I don’t see anyone here adopting an extreme hyperskeptical or even solipsistic position, although it is worth pointing out that it is perfectly possible to provide a rational case for so doing.
I think it is fair to say that we all assume that if someone jumps off a very tall building they will fall and be killed when they smash into the ground. We have a high degree of confidence in that assumption because that is what we have observed invariably happens. We can say that assumption is well ‘grounded’ with any need to assume the existence of a god. We could also argue that such grounding is much firmer than premises that are assumed in order to reach some preconceived conclusion.
It may come as a surprise to you but people often hold various positions which are inconsistent or even contradictory. It stems from our nature as fallible beings with limited knowledge. Assuming the existence of a god is no help unless we posit something about its nature. Religions, which claim to be a source of such information, are not much help in this respect since they can be riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions themselves.
There is no absurdity involved in comparing empirical observations to see where they are consistent or inconsistent unless you are a solipsist. Once you assume the existence of an objective reality then it becomes possible to observe it and to make statements about it which can be compared to the observations. All this is a perfectly rational process which can be done without knowing or even assuming that there is some kind of deity behind it all.
As many others have pointed out before, what is irrational is to believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence nor even necessity.
I believe religions have survived and even flourished because they provide clear personal and social benefits. They help to bind societies together and make them more resilient and durable under stress and they are a source of great strength and support for individuals in times of extreme personal crisis. My question to you is: is it rational to believe in something because of the aforementioned benefits even though there is no empirical justification for so doing?
We all know that philosophers and theologians have constructed some clever arguments for the existence of a god but others have attacked them or provided counter-arguments and, as yet, we have no empirical evidence which could help decide the matter either way.
Murray:
Going all hyperskeptical just to avoid admitting that we must make these assumptions of objective reality is just a means to derail the debate and drags the argument into sophistry.
I consider it to be uncivil, William, for you to accuse people of base motives without any evidence of what they may be thinking. What assumptions of “objective reality” are you talking about? Let’s accept arguendo that there is an objective reality (a position I hold.) In what way does that alter the situation that all empirical statements are provisional?