The dishonesty of preaching theism

[henry quirk]

the concept of God cannot even be defined or demonstrated in any consistent or verifiable way.

The same can be said of love.

If there is any kind of god-like being, it is surely nothing like imagined by the small and limited minds of humans -- and is unlikely to be so uniquely hyper-focused on humans amidst all energy and life in motion and arising and falling for billions of years.

I agree. As a deist I say only that God created, and He created man as a free will with natural rights and conscience. I say, speculate, this gives us some small insight into His nature, His personality. But, I might be wrong.

However...

“All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one more thing to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things-trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

[Lacewing]

the concept of God cannot even be defined or demonstrated in any consistent or verifiable way.

The same can be said of love.

Yes. Some people experience it and some people don't, and it's personal even when it's shared.

“...setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

The world is not experienced by everyone in the same way, of course. If some want to imagine something in particular to feel meaning, hope, and joy, they can do so without imposing that as a reality/truth imprinted onto others and all else. You do what you do... and I do what I do... and I'll say yours does not exist for me, and you'll say mine does not exist for you. All true!

[henry quirk]

https://www.scifiwright.com/2016/09/puddleglums-answer/

Puddleglum’s Answer

John C. Wright

There are those who call Christian faith a fairy tale. I assume such scoffers are not old and wise enough to believe in fairies.

To them, I give the answer of that most excellent marshwiggle and insightful theologian, Puddleglum: Suppose my account is a fairy tale. Your account is not even that.

Let us contrast and compare the Christian fairy tale with the tale told by witches both white and green, both modern and ancient.

One modern account of the world consists of little more than saying “Life is a bitch, and then you die, and in the end nobody lives happily ever after. Entropy triumphs over all, a nightfall of endless darkness and infinite cold.”

Well, says I, if you actually believed your account, the wise thing to do is to swallow cold poison and jump into the sea: so the fact that you are still here hints that at some level you know your account is unsatisfactory: a poorly constructed story, pointless, plotless, and with a weak ending. It is not a tale at all, but a complaint.

Another account, this one with considerably more pedigree, says, “We are all just naked apes or meat machines: our souls are made of atoms blown together by the twelve winds with no more purpose and meaning than the shape of the sand dune: we are helpless and without free will, victims of blind evolutionary forces and blind historical forces. Atop the Holy Mountain no gods dance, and no burning bushes speak. Death is dreamless sleep and soft oblivion. Therefore let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Entropy triumphs over all, a nightfall of endless darkness and infinite cold.”

This is a poor story: a tale of despair, a myth to justify hedonism.

A nobler version of this same account says, “Man is a rational animal, capable of moral reasoning, creativity, productiveness, love. Man is heroic. Therefore let us live rationally working with mind and heart and soul to produce such works of art and science as befits so dignified a creature: let each man to live for himself alone, a paragon of self-reliance each man in the solitary but invulnerable tower of his self-made soul, never demanding nor making any selfess sacrifice. Nor hopes nor fears of after-lives or nether-worlds need detain us: Therefore let us think, and work, and triumph, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. Entropy triumphs over all, a nightfall of endless darkness and infinite cold.”

This is a poor story: vanity, vainglory, and blindness to the pain and misery of life. The pretense that bad things never happen for no reason to good people is a very thin pretense: since the days of Job, we have all known better. This is a tale of vainglory.

A very ancient version of this account, perhaps the most ancient, has a different ending, for it says, “All this has happened before, and all shall happen again. When the world dies in fire, it shall be reborn from ashes, and all the pain and toil and travail, all the blood shed and tears wept, will all be shed anew, accomplishing nothing. The universe is a wheel of pain, and even the gods are nailed to its spokes like Ixion. To be born is to die, to die is to be born. Fate is all.”

This is too a poor story: all I will say of this account, whether one calls it Greek Ecpyrosis or Hindu Kali Yuga, or Cyclical Universe Theory, is that it is different in name, not in substance, from the Tale of Despair given above. The defeat is as absolute as if the nightfall of endless darkness and infinite cold is already come, and a cyclical changelessness worse than death already has us in its claws.

This is a tale of supine despair more despairing than the tale of despair given above, which at least promised finite rather than infinite misery.

A more noble version of this same ancient account: “All this has happened before, and all shall happen again. The universe is a wheel of pain. The pain is caused by attachment to desire, and desire is caused by thought, and thought is caused by self. By means of strict discipline and stern patience, patience longer than many lifetimes, I will learn to detach myself from all thought and therefore from all pain, and enter into a state of perfect nonthinking nonbeing, where I will neither sin nor suffer Karmic punishment for sin. By self-extinction I escape the wheel of pain.”

This is a poor story: I will say of this account that is has all the drawbacks of the despair of the belief in the Eternal Return given above, but it also has the vanity and vainglory of pretending men can improve themselves into perfection and prelapsarian sinlessness by discipline and meditation. The attempt to achieve bliss by means of pure selflessness is as untrustworthy a daydream as the attempt to achieve bliss via worldly satisfaction with the world by means of pure selfishness.

In sum, the accounts of life outside my so-called fairy tale are heedless hedonism, despairing resignation, vainglorious selfishness, supine despair, or vainglorious selflessness.

None are anything a decent man would say to the mother weeping over her child’s untimely grave.

None are fit for human beings to live by.

None describe life.

None are philosophically edifying, morally encouraging, scientifically true, or dramatically satisfying accounts of man’s place in the universe; whereas my so-called fairy tale is all of these and more.

I repeat Puddleglum’s answer:

Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things–trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.

[Age]

GREAT. So, could you also AGREE that God then ACTUALLY could EXIST, and that it just depends on WHAT DEFINITION is being provided, or more likely just being IMAGINED, for the word 'God'?

I think I could agree, Age, but I would prefer to be given a specific example of a definition before committing myself to a definite yes.

And I certainly would, and do actually, hope that you, and EVERY one else, would WAIT to be given a specific example of A definition, before ANY one would agree or disagree that 'God' exists, or not.

But, obviously, this hope was LOST throughout past human history experiences.

Also, and by the way, if one wants a specific example of A definition, then, surely by now, they KNOW what to do to obtain and gain A specific example of A definition.

I repeat, though, that my comment referred to a God of the biblical sort. The common or garden Western God.

Well, AGAIN, it is ONLY ones OWN INTERPRETATION that would make 'that God' exist, not exist, or be even ABLE to exist, or not.

To me 'that God' OBVIOUSLY EXISTS. But, then again, I do have a completely DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION and VERSION than most of 'you', human beings, have.

[Age]

If the comment, "I have a suspicion that nobody really believes in God. I'm sure lots of people think they do, but at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction." is what you are referring to here, then I agree the word 'suspicion' implies that that comment was merely a 'speculative theory', (which to me is just a 'fancy' term what 'you' 'think is true'), but the word 'I'm sure', implies an absolute 'knowing', for sure, 'what is true', and so 'an assertion', well from my perspective anyway. And, claiming that 'at a deeper level of their psyche they KNOW it's a fiction', also, to me, implies that that was 'an assertion', or CLAIM.

But we have agreed that what 'you' 'speculatively theorize' here, or just 'think' here, we could NEVER refute anyway, and so that 'it' IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' ANYWAY. So, you might as well made 'it' AN ASSERTION, 'you' could NEVER be Wrong here.

It isn't an assertion, because my suspicion is based on intuition alone. And I do acknowledge that I could be completely wrong. I don't know enough about human psychology to make such a suggestion with any authority, but it just seems plausible.

I suppose the comment would have been more appropriate down the pub, over a couple of pints with a few mates, rather than in a place where philosophy is practiced, but I don't go to the pub, and I don't really have any mates.

you appear to be missing the points I made about how your second sentence is different from your first sentence because of your use of the words "I'm sure ...".

[Age]

If you're speculating, Henry, then that means (by definition of the word) that you're forming a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Therefore, since you are using the word speculation then your thinking isn't (by definition) founded on firm evidence. Did you perhaps wish to use a different word for your thinking?

I'm good with speculation, or inference, or conjecture, or supposition, or musing, or surmisment.

Belief or faith work too.

Speculating about what may be based on what is is not dishonest (though it may be erroneous).

Now, with that out of the way...

As I say: you can't accurately say what I believe and why I believe, and you can't accurately lay out the counterarguments of others, or even name those folks.

We can VERY ACCURATELY say WHY you BELIEVE EVERY thing you BELIEVE.

But we can only going on what you say you BELIEVE before we could accurately say WHAT you BELIEVE.

[Age]

the concept of God cannot even be defined or demonstrated in any consistent or verifiable way.

The same can be said of love.

Yes. Some people experience it and some people don't, and it's personal even when it's shared.

“...setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's a small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say.” ― C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

The world is not experienced by everyone in the same way, of course. If some want to imagine something in particular to feel meaning, hope, and joy, they can do so without imposing that as a reality/truth imprinted onto others and all else.

Yes they can imagine WITHOUT IMPOSING 'that' as a reality/Truth imprinted onto "others" and all else. BUT it is 'you', "lacewing", who is the ONE here who is CONSTANTLY IMPOSING your OWN IMAGINED reality/Truth and 'trying' so desperately hard to IMPRINT 'it' onto and into "others".

But, because some of 'your' OWN IMAGINED and VERY LIMITED reality/Truth is so OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect 'you' are only IMPRINTING some of 'your ' OWN BELIEFS onto and into "others".

You do what you do... and I do what I do... and I'll say yours does not exist for me, and you'll say mine does not exist for you. All true!

So, if 'your' OWN IMAGINED reality/truth does NOT exist for "others", then why oh WHY do you KEEP 'trying to' ENFORCE or IMPRINT 'it' ON "others"?

And, if "another's" reality/Truth does NOT exist for you, then WHY NOT just move along and just accept this, instead of continually CLAIM that what 'they' do IS Wrong, while at the EXACT SAME time 'you' ARE DOING the EXACT SAME 'thing' "lacewing"?

[Gary Childress]

If you're speculating, Henry, then that means (by definition of the word) that you're forming a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Therefore, since you are using the word speculation then your thinking isn't (by definition) founded on firm evidence. Did you perhaps wish to use a different word for your thinking?

I'm good with speculation, or inference, or conjecture, or supposition, or musing, or surmisment.

I've noticed that.

[henry quirk]

If you're speculating, Henry, then that means (by definition of the word) that you're forming a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. Therefore, since you are using the word speculation then your thinking isn't (by definition) founded on firm evidence. Did you perhaps wish to use a different word for your thinking?

I'm good with speculation, or inference, or conjecture, or supposition, or musing, or surmisment.

I've noticed that.

Good.

Still not anything from you supportin'...

A lot of people seem to disagree with your speculations.

Mebbe you were just speculating?

Anytime you wanna examine what & why I believe what I do: just say so.

[Lacewing]

I repeat Puddleglum’s answer...

Believe all the stories you must. Allow others the freedom and clarity to not believe the same.

[Harbal]

you appear to be missing the points I made about how your second sentence is different from your first sentence because of your use of the words "I'm sure ...".

I can't be sure (even though I used that word) that those who say they believe in God actually do believe, but I think it probable that, in most cases, they do.

The word "sure" that I used in the first clause of the sentence wasn't meant to apply to the second clause.

[Iwannaplato]

Belief in a god is a personal matter. No one knows anything more than what feels true for them. To preach such a thing to other people as if it is an absolute truth/reality that other people should subscribe to, ends up requiring a great deal of manipulation and dishonesty (whether conscious or not) in forcing a particular pattern.

I think it is more common than this. That many of our philosophical positions here imply things about metaphysics, say, that are very hard to demonstrate to others. I don't think there's a problem with asserting one's position, even with certainty. I am not sure that's manipulation in and of itself. Problems come in, for me, after that. When one argues disingenuously, or tells someone that you've proven something you haven't - and here, regardless of the position.

Where else in life would we allow such unchecked mind control and programming that claims to be crucial for our souls?

All over the place. One I think mind control is a concept that should be restricted to situation where we have more power over someone that words on a screen that they can ignore. Hypnosis, torture on the short term end. Long term processes with implict assumptions. Like messages that are implicit but unstated in advertising can be an attempt at mind control. Seeding propaganda as information in films, articles, tv news for example - by corporations or administrations, for example. Some person stating their opinion in a philosophy forum as fact, to me just doesn't qualify as mind control. The forum itself is a context where assertions are meant to be questioned, arguments are open to critique. You can't, here, really claim that it's rude or unexpected when your statements of fact or 'fact' and your lines of reasoning are picked at, questions, criticized. Perhaps someone's attitude is like the attitude of those who do carry out mind control, but the actual process, I think, can't be that here.

Why do we think theism needs to be preached at us?

Well, they want to. I think the idea of a thread is to set things going with an assertion of what is the case or what is not the case. From there people can do all sorts of tactical things that are disingenuous, assholish, confused, fallacious, distracting, off point, not really responsing and so on. To me the problem comes in when there is a systematic inability to have a dialogue, and in that case it doesn't matter what the position discussed is.

Why not ask each individual what their view of the divine is, if they have such a view, and then learn and be inspired by the commonalities between them? Why is this idea of preaching at people to tell them what to believe considered divine? What is really behind such a thing?

I really don't see the advantage with secular posters having bad habits. PK asserts a lot of stuff. He actually interacts less with people's responses than Dattaswami. His thinking is often quite sloppy and confused and so are his responses. They are often off point, cherry picky, leading to more confusion. I agree with him much more than DS. But the process of interaction is in many ways the same.

The problem I have with getting topic specific is that then something like physicalism gets let off the hook per se. Like don't preach about God, but it can often seem like a metaphysical position like physicalism is not problematic when this is asserted (this is just one example). In fact my even calling it a metaphysical position will be problematic for some and any criticism is treats as needing extreme evidence. I think it's better if all positions are pressed with the same rigor or better put it is understood that any position is open to being criticized, questions, pecked at, explored and is in need of justification. Rather than asserting X is true is mind control, asserting Y is not, even if you assert them in the same way with the same degree of certainty.

[Lacewing]

Belief in a god is a personal matter. No one knows anything more than what feels true for them. To preach such a thing to other people as if it is an absolute truth/reality that other people should subscribe to, ends up requiring a great deal of manipulation and dishonesty (whether conscious or not) in forcing a particular pattern.

I think it is more common than this. That many of our philosophical positions here imply things about metaphysics, say, that are very hard to demonstrate to others. I don't think there's a problem with asserting one's position, even with certainty. I am not sure that's manipulation in and of itself. Problems come in, for me, after that. When one argues disingenuously, or tells someone that you've proven something you haven't - and here, regardless of the position.

I agree with you. My initial post for this thread was not clear enough for what I was trying to express. I tried to add more clarity with my post that followed that, in which I tried to better describe the kind of preaching that...

> suggests that the 'others' are not of God (or the divine) already... that they are separate
> suggests that the preachers uniquely and truly know God
> introduces all kinds of manmade distortions
> ignores the consideration that the divine is represented through all

Because I think such preaching is dishonest, and that it's despicable to try to convince people that they are excluded (or will be) from the divine.

Asserting one's own viewpoint is normal in a discussion forum, of course. I'm trying to pinpoint where (I think) a line gets crossed with theism... such as, when it is asserted that people are not spiritual or 'of the divine' if they do not subscribe to a particular brand of theism. It is difficult to have a discussion with anyone who takes such a position against another, as it appears they are only here to preach at others.

Where else in life would we allow such unchecked mind control and programming that claims to be crucial for our souls?

All over the place.

Well, I was trying to focus on the part I bolded... in which claims are made about one's soul. Perhaps my words 'mind control and programming' seem exaggerated, but I'm referring to the kind of theist attitude and message that insists one is bad unless and until that one adopts a certain brand of theism.

Why do we think theism needs to be preached at us?

Well, they want to. I think the idea of a thread is to set things going with an assertion of what is the case or what is not the case. From there people can do all sorts of tactical things that are disingenuous, assholish, confused, fallacious, distracting, off point, not really responsing and so on. To me the problem comes in when there is a systematic inability to have a dialogue, and in that case it doesn't matter what the position discussed is.

Yes, I agree with you. My question was meaning to ask why anyone should think that another needs to be connected to what they're already (logically) connected to? I think it is a false notion that we're separated from that which some believe created us and/or from that which divinely flows throughout all. It is such a distorted story to suggest that we have a father-god to whom we must be introduced by humans. What kind of father is that... and where is our mother... maybe she could remind Dad who we are and talk to him on our behalf?

I think it's better if all positions are pressed with the same rigor or better put it is understood that any position is open to being criticized, questions, pecked at, explored and is in need of justification.

I agree. Admittedly, it may be easier (and more fun) to pick apart absurd stories/claims that are full of inconsistencies and self-serving fantasy, and to notice the oddities of the characters who might peddle such things.

I put forth an idea (which I think is logical) that surely all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation. I would really like for some of the diehard theists to explain how this doesn't make sense? Further, for anyone who agrees with this idea, I would like to discuss what might be the implications of it? What might it reveal about life and ourselves? What might it make possible?

[Age]

you appear to be missing the points I made about how your second sentence is different from your first sentence because of your use of the words "I'm sure ...".

I can't be sure (even though I used that word) that those who say they believe in God actually do believe, but I think it probable that, in most cases, they do.

Now that you have CHANGED your WORDS what you say now is irrefutable.

The word "sure" that I used in the first clause of the sentence wasn't meant to apply to the second clause.

Okay. So, would you now like to take a closer LOOK AT the second clause of your sentence, and DISCUSS that?

The so-called 'second clause' you wrote was, "at a deeper level of their psyche they know it's a fiction", right?

If yes, then it is in relation to God, Itself, being fiction, right?

If yes, then as already pointed out we AGREE that absolutely NO one believes that a fictitious entity actually exists. But, if we CHANGE the definition for the word 'God', I KNOW 'at a deeper level of the human psyche they ALL KNOW that God exists'.

If you would like to LOOK AT and DISCUSS 'this', then we can.

[Iwannaplato]

I agree with you. My initial post for this thread was not clear enough for what I was trying to express. I tried to add more clarity with my post that followed that, in which I tried to better describe the kind of preaching that...

OK, and I'm also exploring this. (I mean, I suppose I'd have a different reaction to someone promoting pedophilia or rape. )

> suggests that the 'others' are not of God (or the divine) already... that they are separate
> suggests that the preachers uniquely and truly know God
> introduces all kinds of manmade distortions
> ignores the consideration that the divine is represented through all

Because I think such preaching is dishonest, and that it's despicable to try to convince people that they are excluded (or will be) from the divine.

I would probably react negatively to most of those things, as ideas. But it'd be ok to assert them, in the sense that, they'd be something to chew on. I do think some people might have more of a connection to anything, including a deity.

Asserting one's own viewpoint is normal in a discussion forum, of course. I'm trying to pinpoint where (I think) a line gets crossed with theism... such as, when it is asserted that people are not spiritual or 'of the divine' if they do not subscribe to a particular brand of theism.

It depends for me what crossing the line entails.

It is difficult to have a discussion with anyone who takes such a position against another, as it appears they are only here to preach at others.

I think the 'only here to preach' personality trait or posting trait is crossing a line, though regardless of content/focus. I wouldn't ban them, per se.

Well, I was trying to focus on the part I bolded... in which claims are made about one's soul. Perhaps my words 'mind control and programming' seem exaggerated, but I'm referring to the kind of theist attitude and message that insists one is bad unless and until that one adopts a certain brand of theism.

I certainly don't like that.

Yes, I agree with you. My question was meaning to ask why anyone should think that another needs to be connected to what they're already (logically) connected to? I think it is a false notion that we're separated from that which some believe created us and/or from that which divinely flows throughout all. It is such a distorted story to suggest that we have a father-god to whom we must be introduced by humans. What kind of father is that... and where is our mother... maybe she could remind Dad who we are and talk to him on our behalf?

I also don't like the male God only religions and what that generally entails as far as how women are viewed.

I put forth an idea (which I think is logical) that surely all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation.

I sort of agree, though my guess is that this has implications I wouldn't agree with. There are some really pathological humans out there. I don't believe they are intrusions from some toxic universe or something, but I am not sure what it means in any practical sense to think of them as divine and connected.

I would really like for some of the diehard theists to explain how this doesn't make sense? Further, for anyone who agrees with this idea, I would like to discuss what might be the implications of it? What might it reveal about life and ourselves? What might it make possible?

Yes, I think that's a good discussion.