Impotence or Omnipotence. A Question about the Mormon God

[Guest]

Indeed, it is quite clear that the God hypothesis serves the purposes of making one's life more tolerable--at least for a large number of people. Underneath it all, it seems that many people believe in God not because it really seems likely that God exists, but rather because without that comforting belief they feel lost, discouraged and uncertain. God is certainly a comforting hypothesis that does indeed help people through rough times. In has a unifying effect on one’s world view and provides a sense of meaning. But at the cost of knowing that bare truth of things.
I'm sure it worked that way for believers in the classical Greek gods or the Norse gods. I am sure that thoughts of the Buddha have comforted many and that Buddhism has provided a unifying, organizing cosmic backdrop to many lives.

It may even be that belief in God is healthy in some sense. But none of this goes anyway toward providing evidence that God actually exists. Furthermore, there is much lost when one jumps to a belief in the supernatural; namely, the ability to see the problems in the world as our responsibility and as something that no gods are going to fix for us. This includes suffering, hunger, destruction of the environment, war and political strife and much more. We really are on our own and it is dangerous not to realize it.

I think you are correct Tarski. Of course that is my largest stumbling block to belief is that I just can't "believe" in something just because I want it to be true. You mention Buddha and Greek Gods... I never had God in my life attached to any religion. I was not raised in any Church. I was baptized as an infant and my parents were inactive. The God I felt had no attachment to any Church.

I think for some people belief that God will take care of the world's problems can indeed be dangerous. For others I would see that belief in God would give them the impetus to try to change the world.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I owe you an apology too, I was snippy last night due to circumstances unrelated to anything here. I got a little too invested and defensive. Sorry.

Thank you so much Nehor. :)

I'll try to be less sensitive. I'm sorry too.

[_wenglund]

And yet all of these stories are perfectly consistent with the idea that there is no God. In fact, looking at the big picture, the no god hypothesis is a much much better fit.

While it is true that these stories don't necessitate a belief in God (though I believe they do leave ample room for belief in God), I reasonably disagree that the big picture makes the "no God" hypothesis a much better fit. To me, the "better fit" is in the eye of the beholder.

Besides, as I see things, it isn't just about what hypothesis may "fit" best, but also about which hypothesis may prove most valuable in improving one's own life (on a variety of levels) and enabling them to assist in the improvement of the lives of others-

Indeed, it is quite clear that the God hypothesis serves the purposes of making one's life more tolerable--at least for a large number of people. Underneath it all, it seems that many people believe in God not because it really seems likely that God exists, but rather because without that comforting belief they feel lost, discouraged and uncertain. God is certainly a comforting hypothesis that does indeed help people through rough times. In has a unifying effect on one’s world view and provides a sense of meaning. But at the cost of knowing that bare truth of things.
I'm sure it worked that way for believers in the classical Greek gods or the Norse gods. I am sure that thoughts of the Buddha have comforted many and that Buddhism has provided a unifying, organizing cosmic backdrop to many lives.

It may even be that belief in God is healthy in some sense. But none of this goes anyway toward providing evidence that God actually exists. Furthermore, there is much lost when one jumps to a belief in the supernatural; namely, the ability to see the problems in the world as our responsibility and as something that no gods are going to fix for us. This includes suffering, hunger, destruction of the environment, war and political strife and much more. We really are on our own and it is dangerous not to realize it.

Of course the set of all believers can be arrayed along a spectrum of faith, from those who have very little confidence in the existence of God to those who who have near undoubting confidence in the existence of God. Now, whether you are correct in conjecturing that most believers stack up on the "little confidence' end of the spectrum, and are barely holding on to their belief for the purposes of comfort, is uncertain, though I seriously doubt it. I was suprised to learn from Prof. Rodney Stark, in a speech he gave on "The Economics of Religion", just how strong the classical Greeks believed in the reality of their Gods.

Besides, the varied confidence levels along the faith spectrum are more than a function of "comfort" value, but are also a product of mounting evidence and epistemic growth. And, the value in believing in God goes well beyond "comfort" to also include added meaning, purpose, and worth of life and relations, which not only frames one's ethics and morals and judgement, but also engenders a sense of hope and direction and motivation towards the betterment of self and mankind.

How this all manifests itself and works, is too complex for my understanding, let alone my attempting to spell it out here. But, perhaps some insight may come from contrasting the way the hard sciences might briefly describe the human soul (as a complex amalgam of atoms) in comparison with how the LDS might briefly describe the same (as a child of God).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-