What are the Benefits of Theism?

[Belinda]

Many thanks to Tillingborn for your recommendation to images of General Relativity.

In mind of the warning from Skepdick that the billiard ball in the net illustration gives the wrong intuition, I think I remember also there are more sophisticated versions of the net thing where the net convolutes and involutes so as to accommodate several heavenly bodies and how their 'weights' relate to each other. These more complex diagrams do not appeal to intuitions,of course.

There is a certain appeal to intuition in the story about how a woman pushing a baby in a pram is drawn towards a huge lorry rushing past nearby. While that may be urban myth, the complexity of the idea may also embrace smaller things than heavenly bodies although of course we cannot perceive such tiny differences in the force field.

I also note from Tillingborn that physicists are not concerned to categorise ideas such as 'theory' and 'fact' . So no help there.
Thanks to Skepdick, and I accept that the geodesic diagrams and the idea they represent is a good explanation as explanations go but it does not advance the cause of finding absolute reality. I hope my paraphrase is true to what Skepdick actually wrote!

'Theism' refers to belief in a Rock of Ages sort of deity that (or 'Who') has made changeless laws of nature; so that deity is mind-independent. This mind -independent and otherwise contextless deity is the one that Immanuel Can and many other theists believe on and/or believe in.

We may say theism also includes belief in and belief on a deity that is largely a psychological entity that is characterised by the human spirit of hope, enterprise, and attachment to the well- proved and traditional transcendental values and no more.
The latter sort of theism , if 'theism ' it is, can and often does revere the myth of Jesus rather like Muslims view Jesus. The latter view also reveres all the artists , prophets, and scientists who are less interested in themselves and more interested in the transcendental values.

[Immanuel Can]

This mind -independent and otherwise contextless deity is the one that Immanuel Can and many other theists believe on and/or believe in.

I understand the term "mind-independent." It's really as synonym for "real."

But I don't know what a "contextless" deity would be. You want one that's "contexted" by way of being only a product of imagination? And you think that's a better option, for some reason? You think that anthropomorphizing "human hope" is a good idea? And you think there are "transcendental values," even though, according to you, there's no actual "transcendent reality"?

You're going to have to help me out there, B. Some "context" is lacking there.

[Belinda]

This mind -independent and otherwise contextless deity is the one that Immanuel Can and many other theists believe on and/or believe in.

I understand the term "mind-independent." It's really as synonym for "real."

But I don't know what a "contextless" deity would be. You want one that's "contexted" by way of being only a product of imagination? And you think that's a better option, for some reason? You think that anthropomorphizing "human hope" is a good idea? And you think there are "transcendental values," even though, according to you, there's no actual "transcendent reality"?

You're going to have to help me out there, B. Some "context" is lacking there.

God, for realist theists, transcends this relative world of time and space. For realist theists, God remains unchanged no matter what changes occur in the relative world of time and space . His creation did not change Him, for realist theists. Context is nothing to do with God Who is changeless.

To anthropomorphise human hopes and fears may sometimes be due a lack of knowledge of the poetic idiom of personification. And also sometimes people anthropomorphise due to archaic superstition.

Truth, beauty, and goodness are an indivisible trinity; if you know one you know the others. This is not a supernatural reality it's a psychological reality.

[Immanuel Can]

His creation did not change Him, for realist theists.

I know of no Theist who believes it did, except for, perhaps Process Theology or Open Theism, both marginal views at best.

Truth, beauty, and goodness are an indivisible trinity;

Now, that's obviously nothing but sentimental codswallop. There are plenty of evil things that appear beautiful, plenty of lies that are winsome to believe, and even some good things that are hard to look at or to do.

[Greatest I am]

What are the Benefits of Theism?

Would be like asking a child what are the benefits of

Religions and theisms, philosophies and political stripes are just labels we give to tribes or like minded gangs.

I agree.

My theory is that human brain got too big and became complicated enough to be capable of artificially creating a thought processing biology that emerged as a phantom self/mind that could imagine all sorts of ideas and thoughts to be real, even though these images/imagined things were seen by neuroscientists to be just hallucinatory pictures, not differing too much in context to a nightly dream image, all created by the same brain.
The entire manifested human body is but an Image of the imageless, for there is nothing/ behind the image of me-self, except the concept itself. But even the concept is empty.
Human language has created the story of 'my life', via the brain of course, but there is nothing more to it than that. Reality is all one huge hallucination. But the human organism has been humanly conditioned to believing what their own believing brains are showing them, so they do not know any different, they function on the human programmed level from birth.

There are many benefits to being in tribes and if you look at your own, you will see the benefits of fellowship.

We are driven by our insecure gene to seek the security of whatever tribe we are born affiliated with. Most remained tied to these.

You, like all of us, are a mix of theisms. Look at your affiliations and tell us why they benefit you.

Regards
DL

The benefits are survival. That's it, there is nothing more to it than that.
I was born a human, so I have to live the human way, which is full of it's own conditions and traditions that never seem to change. I have no choice but to follow the human herd, I depend on the herd for my very survival.

If I had been born a fox, then I would have to live the fox way, or if I had been born a crocodile I would have to live the crocodile way and heaven help those poor creatures who end up inside the jaws of a crocodile, who have to endure what I can only imagine as the horror nightmare of being thrashed around in the water until swallowed, not really an ideal way to spend ones alotted time on this planet.

Exactly, and without survival, we are nothing.

That benefit is why we will always have a variety of thinking systems, theologies as well as secular philosophical schools of thought.

We should disrespect the savage god theologies though. They are garbage.

Regards
DL

[tillingborn]

Many thanks to Tillingborn for your recommendation to images of General Relativity.

You're welcome.

I also note from Tillingborn that physicists are not concerned to categorise ideas such as 'theory' and 'fact' . So no help there.

The thing is that we're all just people. There aren't any sharp borders that separate a scientist, philosopher, poet, mystic, artist, mathematician, teacher, student, engineer, politician, crook and so on. How good we are at being any of those depends on how well we watch others doing it; how well we learn the rules and tricks they already know, and ultimately the ideas we come up with for doing even better. We watch, we imitate, we invent. It's the same in science: data, law, theory; but where you draw the lines and what you call the resulting sections doesn't really matter.

[Belinda]

Tillingborn wrote:

The thing is that we're all just people. There aren't any sharp borders that separate a scientist, philosopher, poet, mystic, artist, mathematician, teacher, student, engineer, politician, crook and so on. How good we are at being any of those depends on how well we watch others doing it; how well we learn the rules and tricks they already know, and ultimately the ideas we come up with for doing even better. We watch, we imitate, we invent. It's the same in science: data, law, theory; but where you draw the lines and what you call the resulting sections doesn't really matter.

Classifications matter a lot to most people. Some people kill others who identify or are identified with with some specific classification. Impeachment for instance is a classification.

[tillingborn]

Classifications matter a lot to most people.

How do you classify people like that? Is it true of them all the time, and is that all they are?

Some people kill others who identify or are identified with with some specific classification.

Yes they do. There are many names for people who do so and there are lots of theories about why they do it; but there are far more individuals and reasons than there are classifications. Scientists try to find things that everyone is bound to agree to. Having done that, they generally can't be bothered to argue with people who care about classifications. After all, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Impeachment for instance is a classification.

It could also be called a process, and if anyone wants to call it 'clown shoes monkey nuts', so what? Few names stir no disagreement.

[tillingborn]

Do you think I am wrong to say that I know apples fall to the ground?

"Apples" are not rational creatures.

Have another look: the question wasn't whether apples know they fall.

And "falling to the ground" is not an aesthetic exercise.

You cannot believe that means anything in the context of this back and forth.

I think your claim to know why people do what they do is unwarranted.

My claim is precisely that I don't know why people do what they do. People believe things for reasons even they can't explain. You, for instance, cannot possibly support your belief that I claim to know why people do what they do.

But you knew that. You were just doing the old "twist" routine.

"I think your claim to know why people do what they do is unwarranted."

[Belinda]

Tillingborn wrote:

but there are far more individuals and reasons than there are classifications.

You don't understand what I mean by "classifications" . For others to classify A they attribute B,C,or D and so forth to A. A does not exist for others unless A is conceived of being a bundle of attributes. However A does exist for A without A's attributing any attributes to A.

It is an existential tragedy that individual subjectivities are absolute.

For theists who believe God is all-knowing, A exists for themself and for God regardless of how any third person classifies A. This is a positive benefit of theism. It is a benefit of theism which is like the belief of pantheists that subjective feelings and perceptions necessarily exit.A pantheist will console by saying "You are a child of the Universe": a theist will console by saying "You are a child of God".

[Immanuel Can]

You, for instance, cannot possibly support your belief that I claim to know why people do what they do.

Yeah, actually, I can. You said it.

[tillingborn]

You, for instance, cannot possibly support your belief that I claim to know why people do what they do.

Yeah, actually, I can. You said it.

Here's my theory: In pop terms you are a narcissist, who creates unfalsifiable theories and the strain of doing so leads to cognitive dissonance. Put simply, you can't bear to be wrong, so you make up endless excuses which you know are nonsense, but given the choice of admitting you are wrong or looking like an idiot, you choose the latter.

[Dontaskme]

Exactly, and without survival, we are nothing.

That benefit is why we will always have a variety of thinking systems, theologies as well as secular philosophical schools of thought.

We should disrespect the savage god theologies though. They are garbage.

Regards
DL

Everything the human person stands for, believes in, experiences and aspire to is the result of thought. And thought is destructive because it is nothing more than a protective mechanism, programmed to protect its own interests at all costs.
The human being is just another animal, always was, is, and ever will be, there is nothing but the animalistic nature here on earth. There is nothing higher than human sentient awareness that can be known of. There is no power outside of man's awareness. But Man has created God out of fear of his own not-knowing. So the problem is fear and not God.

Human identifies with the thought I AM to be a separate thing apart from the rest of nature. The trouble all started when a child was named at their birth. In reality though, the birthed body is a fortuitous concourse of atoms. There is no death for the body, only an exchange of atoms. Their changing places and taking different forms is what we call 'death.' It's a process which restores the energy level in nature that has gone down. In reality, nothing is born and nothing is dead...but that's another story for the believing brain to wrap it's neurons around.


My garbage, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's my theory: In pop terms you are...

Without even the necessity of a theory at all, this attempt at argument here is ad hominem and also wrong.

And here's the proof of that

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 12:42 am
"If a belief system holds up to scrutiny, well and good, but most people pragmatically adopt the general philosophy of the crowd they happen to belong to. There are thousands of successful belief systems, insofar as they are conducive to human well-being, many of which claim to be the truth. People who make a choice do so for aesthetic reasons, truth has little to do with it.

Comma splice, by the way.

[Greatest I am]

Exactly, and without survival, we are nothing.

That benefit is why we will always have a variety of thinking systems, theologies as well as secular philosophical schools of thought.

We should disrespect the savage god theologies though. They are garbage.

Regards
DL

Everything the human person stands for, believes in, experiences and aspire to is the result of thought. And thought is destructive because it is nothing more than a protective mechanism, programmed to protect its own interests at all costs.
The human being is just another animal, always was, is, and ever will be, there is nothing but the animalistic nature here on earth. There is nothing higher than human sentient awareness that can be known of. There is no power outside of man's awareness. But Man has created God out of fear of his own not-knowing. So the problem is fear and not God.

Human identifies with the thought I AM to be a separate thing apart from the rest of nature. The trouble all started when a child was named at their birth. In reality though, the birthed body is a fortuitous concourse of atoms. There is no death for the body, only an exchange of atoms. Their changing places and taking different forms is what we call 'death.' It's a process which restores the energy level in nature that has gone down. In reality, nothing is born and nothing is dead...but that's another story for the believing brain to wrap it's neurons around.


My garbage, if that is the word you want to use, has no copyright. You are free to reproduce, distribute, interpret, misinterpret, distort, garble, do what you like, even claim authorship, without my consent or the permission of anybody.

If ones god is the genocidal p**** Yahweh, then they and the god are mental garbage.

Nice to see that is not your god.

As a naturalist, I agree that we are the epitome of life. As far as I can tell.

That is what has us creating gods. We seek to show we are the fittest.

Regards
DL