Why We Believe in Gods

[_JAK]

Roger stated:
Sort of like well intentioned parents teach about Santa Claus to kids that want to believe... from post

Yes. A difference is that children gradually learn just who is Santa Claus. If one is 25 and still believes that Santa comes down the chimney and leaves presents, that one has problems.

What most Christians who go to a single congregation genuinely do not recognize is the fact that there is that wide variety of interpretations placed on religious myths, that there is much disagreement, and that biblical interpretations deviate greatly.

That’s particularly the case where there is no genuine evidence to support claims declared with absolute certainty.

I should like those who regard themselves as Christians to go to a single congregation for two months, then to another, then to another for the same time period. I should like them to talk with the clergy in each case and ask questions regarding that churches doctrines. I should like this to range from Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, fundamentalist groups (Baptists, etc.), Mormon.

The objective would be to have them see the widely divergent views and doctrines of the various groups. It would not be enough to merely visit 6 right-wing fundamentalist groups which might have more similarity.

Thus, they would have a more comprehensive grasp of the absolute dogmas of groups (denominations, sects, cults). But, people socialize in religion and generally take without question various pronouncements (Santa stories).

Not only that, but most groups have their own “literature” which they use for Sunday school instruction from the youth to adults. It’s filled with God wants this; God wants that; God is this; God is that; etc. The result is weekly repetition of creeds, hymn scripts, prayers, etc.

A wide exposure to many different doctrines especially for youth who are still young enough to have open minds would elevate their cognition of the multiplex of Christian religious dogmas.

If people are ± 40, it may well be too late.

JAK

[_EAllusion]

It's hard to say just how fine-tuned the physical constants are for life. What the constants are fine-tuned for is earth-like conditions that presumably gave rise to sustainable life. There's a little bit of give here and there to get to that. It's also not particularly well understood what kinds of life can develop and what their likelihood is in different conditions.

The crater patter on the moon being exact as it is? Well, the physical constants are fine-tuned exactly for that. That is to say, if there were any variance in their values, then the crater pattern on the moon would not be as it is. It makes just as much sense to say that is the common value of the physical constants as life is. Probably more so. Of course, the logic of the FT argument applies to that situation as it does any other number of targets. You simply need to have a designer predefined as wanting the crater pattern on the moon and the ability to achieve it and wambang, there's your "explanation." Any number of post hoc targets work. Take a cubic foot volume of any part of earth and point to the pattern of molecules in it exactly as they are. The physical constants were perfectly fine-tuned for that too.

[Guest]

What we desire is ever more information and ever better design. Our notions of best design tends toward a design which has no failure. For those who assume designer, they assume purposeful design. At the same time, evidence demonstrates that even we humans today can conceive of superior design the design of all – everything. Medical science seeks to improve quality of life as well as length of life. It’s purposeful intervention. What we observe is not evidence of some supernatural design. No evidence has established the assertion. Those who claim so must ultimately embrace and advocate an inferior designer. No one does that openly.
JAK

"Good design" in the sense being used here is a normative judgment. It just takes for granted that, for instance, an eyeball without a blindspot is better than one with one. But this can only be so with some auxillarly assumptions about what is desirable. The argument that God, being an optimal designer, would design things optimally isn't defeated by pointing out that eyeballs have unnecessary blindspots. The problem, as I explained, is things are only optimally designed relative to their desired ends. If the goal is to produce the eyeball's blind spot, then the eye's design is optimal to that end. Forget for a moment that there's no requirement that a generic designer be a good one. Even if we are talking about an optimal designer, we can't judge how good the results are without knowing what the aims were.

The good arguments to bad design really are just variations of the argument from evil. Those work because we have an aim available to us in the form of the claim God is maximally benevolent. We know something about what it means to be benevolent.

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, some interesting go-rounds here by some highly imaginative folks adamant in their certainties...
As usual, I enjoy, and agree with--I guess one leads to the other--your understanding, and "intelligent explainations" (intelligent design of your presentation:-)

Your wish that folks would take themselves methodically and purposefully from church to church in a personal comparitive study of Religion has probably been done by some number of true(th)-seekers here. While not to the exacting degree you suggest, I have taken such steps myself. They have led me to my current state of mind, understanding, knowledge and Faith.

Capitalized in emphasis of its importance and significance in my current life... AND, to differentiate it from my previous religious-faith of traditional establishment Christianism. (Mormon) That institution, as much as it talked "faith", in fact it walked in fables, imaginations, impossibles and improbables that tend to misrepresent reality and lead unthinking, anxiety prone wannabegoodfolks--LDS Missionaries are trained to find them--very often (not always) into an environment more destructive than not...

Back to the original question. I think you--JAK--explianed that well. We were/are taught to believe whatever authoritive persons teach as truth... The Earth is flat/global; there is Heaven/Hell; God/no-God>>>>>

Our challenge is to use our designed-intelligence to arrive at truth in which we can have real faith... Like when we sit in a Dentist chair--as I did yesterday--sit back and faithfully put myself in the trained, expert hands of a Pro... Not under the spell of an Eccliastic quoting "...God's ancient word re creation, and the worlds end..."
Roger
*
*

[_JAK]

Roger stated:
Your wish that folks would take themselves methodically and purposefully from church to church in a personal comparitive study of Religion has probably been done by some number of true(th)-seekers here. While not to the exacting degree you suggest, I have taken such steps myself. They have led me to my current state of mind, understanding, knowledge and Faith.

At many state universities including the one with which I was associated, these universities offer an elective course(s) in Comparative Religions. While students don’t go from one religious group to another (as I mentioned with favor), they do study in detail the specific and particular doctrines which different religious groups advocate. The students investigate and read literature which espouses the perspective of different Christian groups. But additional courses offered also expose students to other world religions and their perspectives including (but limited to) Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, etc.

Students who most enjoy and benefit from this examination of numerous religious perspectives are often those who come from religiously neutral or non-committed family backgrounds. Those who come out of a strong religious bias often have some internal frustrations as they come to grips with the reality that the religion which they were taught is one of many others. When they learn that other religious perspectives are as doctrine-driven as their own cradle-up religion, their own point of reference is expanded. They often return to their families and religious groups with intelligent questions and challenges which make their childhood group (and often their own parents) irritated or frustrated or hostile to the educational institution in which their child has learned to think.

The more the childhood doctrine is exposed as failing to hold water, the more friction tends to show. Education and study which compares religious dogmas tends to result in suspicion and skepticism about that which a child did not question when living at home and when taken to a religious group on a regular basis.

Religion teaches from cradle up what to believe. It does not teach how to think. Truth by assertion fails to work well when and after university students take courses in Comparative Religions. Such courses tend to make students of young adults. Such courses tend to teach students to think.

Of course there are students who sign up for such courses and drop them when thinking becomes painful as it challenges their previously secure belief system. Thinking is not for everyone in religion and philosophy (more broadly).

Roger stated:
Capitalized in emphasis of its importance and significance in my current life... AND, to differentiate it from my previous religious-faith of traditional establishment Christianism. (Mormon) That institution, as much as it talked "faith", in fact it walked in fables, imaginations, impossibles and improbables that tend to misrepresent reality and lead unthinking, anxiety prone wannabegoodfolks--LDS Missionaries are trained to find them--very often (not always) into an environment more destructive than not...

Yes, your point is well taken, and, without question accurate. It’s a very thoughtful comment!

Roger stated:
Our challenge is to use our designed-intelligence to arrive at truth in which we can have real faith... Like when we sit in a Dentist chair--as I did yesterday--sit back and faithfully put myself in the trained, expert hands of a Pro... Not under the spell of an Eccliastic quoting "...God's ancient word re creation, and the worlds end..."

Phrasing somewhat differently, our challenge is to use our intelligence, our information which has been accumulated over many centuries. But the fact is that information has expanded far more dramatically from 1909 to 2009 than it did from 1100 to 1200 (for example). There was no Internet. Most people could neither read nor write. Only the elite and privileged few had access. The capacity to transfer large quantities of information almost instantly did not exist in 1100 (or any other century which we might pick at random). The printing press emphatically accelerated the expansion of information and with enhanced accuracy.

“Designed” in your comment, by implication, assumes either a designer or multiple designers. Humans design by purposeful conduct. The printing press was designed largely by Gutenberg. It was improved in the centuries which followed. The emergence and evolution of human intelligence has facilitated capacity to design. We also know from observation that various higher primates designed tools (of a crude sort to us). The use of a stick or twig to get a small crawling species (an ant for example) to the mouth for food is an example of a primate engaging in design Many other examples (some likely better) could be cited. Primates were challenged as well to engineer for their comfort and survival.

It is clearly correct that “our challenge” in many cases is to ascertain valid conclusions, to build on those conclusions, and to advance our knowledge toward solutions for problems which we (as a society or a race) have need or desire. We are problem solvers. But virtually all life forms are problem solvers. Trees where moisture is deficient grow deeper or more extended roots (or cannot survive there). That is not to imply that trees think. Of course we would not so characterize trees. Animals of all kinds seek protection and nourishment. In doing that, they are designing.

JAK