God and Sheri S. Tepper

Zephyr,Let's ignore tenet 3 for a minute and go to #4:4--They believed in free will, that man, made in God's image, could himself eventually become perfect by studying Nature, which reflected the divine perfection, [/qs]to which your thoughts are: Interesting. I wouldn't have found Atheists to be so altruistic. Why? I know that many must be good people, but I don't understand why--what compels them?Deists should be compelled (if they are bound by the tenets of their religion/beliefs) to be good citizens and humans, but I don't see why an Atheist wouldn't just rob, murder, plunder, whatever, in good conscience.On a different tack, I accept that a large percentage probably are well educated and thoughtful people, but I am curious to know if they think humans have "free will".I'm also curious to know how they define virtue.w/r GenoPS: I'm really concerned about these things, I'm not setting some sort of trap or just making an argument. To me, if I'm going to be a Deist then it's going to have to make more sense than believing anything else. At this point, I think that Atheists may be unnecessarily subtracting God. If you can't say definitively that God is necessary or that God is an impossibility, why not just be agnostic?

A knowledge that there's something greater than ourselves that we can approach and interact with - the community of humans all around us. The question I have for religious people is, why does there need to be more than that? Why isn't that enough? Maybe because they don't want people doing that to them? Maybe because society couldn't function if people behaved lawlessly? We each get more by working together, in the long run, than we get working selfishly. I find it easier to have free will in a universe of quantum uncertainty and limited knowledge than I do in a universe where a god has preordained (or at least has foreknowledge of) my every action, don't you? Because I don't like unanswered questions. And I don't like needlessly multiplying untestable entities. So, why bother with god? I'm willing to change my mind, of course, if god shows up one day. But until then I'm pretty sure there is no god.

'these have all been manufactured to explain why prayer is not effective in real life as it was in the Bible, and why even the most faithful believers cannot tell a mountain to move from here to there. 'so what would you consider an answer ,because not all prayers are yes/no questions,life is more complicated.
if God appeared to you would you believe it or would you say to him 'i will just go and get my science equipment to see if you are real?'

Is that knowledge part of Atheist dogma? If so, would it be summarized, "Atheists are compelled to be good people because of the needs of the greater community of humanity." If not, is that just your position or is it just the "general feeling" of the Atheist community?I wouldn't mind being an Atheist, if I could mentally adjust to accept it, but I wouldn't want my beliefs about an absent deity to unnecessarily constrain my actions. So another tenet would be the Golden Rule? or is it more of a quid pro quo? i.e. "I'll be a good person, in order that society will continue to function."Why couldn't you be an Atheist, and then, not bound by any possible punishment in the hereafter, do whatever you wanted to? That might actually make it interesting. Being unfamiliar with Atheist morality, I'm at a loss---but it does sound fun! The idea of "free will" has a lot of appeal, but I wouldn't want to base that on quantum uncertainty. I feel that people use quantum uncertainty far too liberally for my liking. Probability in quantum theory allow for a great deal of accurate prediction. It's possible that on a macro level probability could be high enough to allow foreknowledge--assuming God is constrained by quantum mechanics. I'm not sure if anything can make me feel easier--if my actions are predetermined, foreknown, or completely free. I would like proof of one or the other, but I don't think it would change the way I act, nor do I think quantum uncertainty provides me with any great comfort about that....although I could be convinced, I guess. Spoken like a true believer (sorry!) This is better. Occam's razor. But I don't see how you can be "pretty sure" when there's no compelling evidence one way or the other.Thanks for the reply! I put my questions in the quotes so they would read more sensibly--I hope that's ok?w/r
Geno[This message has been edited by Geno, 06-12-2003]

Well, there really isn't one. Dogma is antithetical to the idea of atheism, anyway. It would be more accurate to say that the train of thought that leads to atheism usually makes stops at these stations, if you will. It's usually not enough for people to say "well, I don't believe in god, now I'm done thinking." Most people ask stuff like "if there's no god, where do morals come from?" or "if there aren't universal morals, why do people do moral things?" or "why do I feel compelled to help my fellow human beings?"It's those questions that lead to the ideas that generally go hand in hand with atheism. It's not dogma; just similar conclusions that most atheists reach. You could, I guess - you could also be a christian and do those things. It's always been the case that it takes more than the threat of damnation or punishment to keep people in line. To me it's sufficient to assume me we don't live in a deterministic universe - that my actions can't be predicted with infinite accuracy over sufficient time. That's enough free will for me. More like a true skeptic, I hope. Skepticism is my aspiration. There's never any evidence for the non-existence of something. What the evidence demonstrates is that the only god that could exist is one who never acts or does anything at all. So, why bother? Why believe in something that there isn't any evidence for?Or are you so credulous that you'll believe in anything? Purple fairies? Unicorns? Giant invisible sky-goats? Just curious if you're agnostic about all those things, too.

quote:

---

so what would you consider an answer

---

Nothing that I've seen so far. I thought I was getting answers once, at least in terms of guidance I asked for... from a more detached perspective, after the fact, I feel like I told myself what I thought God would want me to do, according to what I had always been taught.

quote:

---

if God appeared to you would you believe it or would you say to him 'i will just go and get my science equipment to see if you are real?'

---

If only it were that simple. I'd love to have a big comforting deity to believe in. Life is freaking scary, if you ask me. I'm not afraid of believing, I just don't feel like I honestly can.

Oi! I'm already getting behind the discussion.

quote:

---

Interesting. I wouldn't have found Atheists to be so altruistic. Why? I know that many must be good people, but I don't understand why--what compels them?

​

Deists should be compelled (if they are bound by the tenets of their religion/beliefs) to be good citizens and humans, but I don't see why an Atheist wouldn't just rob, murder, plunder, whatever, in good conscience.

---

I'll be darned if I know. As Crash said, part of the journey is asking myself how I can believe in morals... all I can say is that abhorrence of human suffering is an inherent part of me. Go talk to Dawkins about natural selection of apparent altruism I've always hated seeing people (and animals) hurt unnecessarily. In the last few years I've gone round and round with myself over the basis for expounding this to others without an appeal to a higher power. I think we're conditioned to believe that a higher power is needed to restrain us, but that properly minded people are in fact capable of establishing and maintaining fair, just, happy ways of life. Maybe the problem is just the ingrained assumption (encouraged by religions) that without gods we are animals just dying to rape and kill and steal. But I'm still trying to work it out for myself. I'm still a child as far as this area goes, believe me.

quote:

---

On a different tack, I accept that a large percentage probably are well educated and thoughtful people, but I am curious to know if they think humans have "free will".

---

A smart atheist might question the need for such terminology. Depends on the flavor of their belief, or lack thereof. Atheists seem to disagree on whether it should be considered a religion or not, because politically there are pros and cons either way.

quote:

---

I'm also curious to know how they define virtue.

---

It's pretty subjective no matter what. I'm practically an atheist, I suppose, as far as it affects my life... and to me virtue is selflessness and peace, mostly. Freedom is high on my list, which is why I get riled up about religiously motivated laws on occasion.

quote:

---

PS: I'm really concerned about these things, I'm not setting some sort of trap

---

I hope not, because otherwise I could end up looking like a total idiot pretty soon! I'm pretty trusting.

quote:

---

To me, if I'm going to be a Deist then it's going to have to make more sense than believing anything else. At this point, I think that Atheists may be unnecessarily subtracting God. If you can't say definitively that God is necessary or that God is an impossibility, why not just be agnostic?

---

If you don't like the uncertainty, then don't wonder... if your threshold for ambiguity is high, enjoy the wondering. I change my mind every few days, and I try to be respectful just in case

So a Deist behaves morally in the hopes that one day he'll be like God (I'm not sure if I buy that, but it sounds like an accurate summary) and an Atheist usually behaves morally for really no reason?I'm not being flippant, you said that they did normally behave morally, but you didn't say why they did that...why do they? I understand that you may be implying that it's not considered at all in Atheism?If it's not, I would still be interested to hear an Atheist's viewpoint on those topics. I believe there can be evidence of non-existence--and I'm sure as an Atheist you've probably heard most of the arguments, but I'll throw out a couple to hear your opinion:
1. a perpetual motion machine
2. a square circle
3. a non-false solution to a self-referential paradox Just a goofy note on this, but one I've legitimately considered: what if the whole universe was God? It would provide for a lot of God-type requirements and could also solve the causality problem. The idea of purple fairies is patently absurd and I resent it! If you want to talk GREEN fairies however you'd better have your points in GOOD ORDER! In all seriousness though, since I believe that there is a non-zero probability that infinite universes exist, I also concede that I do believe that all of the above mentioned may indeed exist as well...sorry.If you were to ask me how probable I think they might be on this planet in this universe, I would obviously say that it would be quite low, but I can't deny that I'm agnostic on this point.You are making the case for agnosticism hard to resist for me...damn, I SO wanted to be a DEIST!wr/Geno

No, an atheist behaves "morally" because it's better for everybody for everybody to do so. Of course, morals have to be defined as those behaviors that are best for society. We once covered this at length in another thread; it was laborious in the extreme so I'll give you the highlight.The examples you gave are things we believe to be non-existent (or impossible) not because we have evidence (in terms of physical data that we generalize from) but be cause we deduce their impossibility from axioms that are assumed to be true. For instance the existence of the laws of thermodynamics doesn't mean that perpetual motion machines are impossible; it just means that if they are possible, the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. Since those laws serve us pretty well we assume their veracity but that's no evidence against the potential existence of perpetual motion machines.So, to make it short, non-existence cannot be inferred from evidence, it can only be deduced from axioms - and that deduction can only be as accurate as your inital assumptions. Well, then there'd be no difference between deism and atheism. Atheists view their morals as a responsibility to the universe. Deists view it as a responsibility to god.Anyway, we'd be like cells in god's body or something? It's possible, I guess. But I can easily imagine my cells denying the existence of "Crashfrog" as an involved, concerned entity - and they'd be right. They might even say that I don't exist, there was only a collection of cells - and they'd be just as right as the ones who referred to me as an all-powerful creator. Sure. I don't believe they exist in any form that humans are going to encounter in my lifetime. Similarly, I don't believe that the god that people talk about exists in any form any human will ever actually encounter. Sorry. I don't think there's nearly as much difference between agnosticism and atheism as you seem to imply there is. I think it's just that in your community, as in mine, agnosticism is a lot more accepted than atheism.Anyway, I think that no matter who you ask about belif in god, they'll tell you the same thing - belief in god is not something you can think your way to. Although I think it's something you can think your way out of.

While religions often claim to be the source of morality that isn;t really true. Morality cam first and then religions seized on it.Once you accept that morality is human and not religious in origin then the question of why atheists have morals ceases to be an issue.

quote:

---

So a Deist behaves morally in the hopes that one day he'll be like God (I'm not sure if I buy that, but it sounds like an accurate summary) and an Atheist usually behaves morally for really no reason?
I'm not being flippant, you said that they did normally behave morally, but you didn't say why they did that...why do they? I understand that you may be implying that it's not considered at all in Atheism?

---

It's mostly a pragmatic thing if you ask me, but pragmatic from the viewpoint of humanity... part of me dislikes that, and wants a "higher" basis, but probably because my upbringing has permanently bent me in that direction. I really do just try to live in a way that avoids the exploitation of others while still enjoying each day as much as possible. I don't see value in much else beyond that.

All,Just wanted to let you know that I've read all of the recent posts and find the ideas very interesting--especially concerning moral behavior.I'm just on my lunchbreak, so I will have to wait to reply/comment in-depth tonight.I've also been looking at the Atheism.com site for background--very interesting if anyone hasn't been.wr
Geno

Ok,I was going through all the replies and I just had to stop--holy cow![please do not imply anything from that]I blame myself for this mess because we’ve kept touching on so many interesting areas! How about if we neck down again and then expand?I think LABELS aside, we are all pretty much in the same boat: None of us believes 100% that God exists or 100% that he doesn’t. There’s a pretty broad spectrum here, but no one is willing to say, God exists and I have proof! or God doesn’t exist and I have proof!right? (CrashI know what you’re going to say, but aside from that, would you agree with the above or not?)Please don't think I am abandoning the VERY good discussion on morals and behavior, I would like to return to that in just a bit; I'm just looking for a little closure on the more base concern of Atheist/Deist/Agnostic differences regarding the above noted concern.I think we can continue on with the discussion of moral action with no further agreement than what I posit above. My interpretation of Deist requirement for moral behavior should allow it. If we can't even get to this point, however, I don't think we can further explore moral behavior successfully.wr/
Geno

As you say, you probably can predict my response - a lack of evidence for god is reason enough to assume there is no god. That said, I'd bet anything I had, including my life and immortal soul (which I don't believe exists either) that there is no god. I'm that sure. And I think that means I'm too sure to be agnostic.Ultimately there's little differences. Atheists and agnostics have the same concerns resulting from their worldview - if there isn't a god determining what is right and wrong, how do we live morally? The answer is, we live morally the same way we always have, because all morals are human in origin.Atheism doesn't really change your morals, or shouldn't anyway. If you consider yourself a moral person, then you did what was right because it was right, not because of threats in the afterlife.I just don't think there's as much difference between atheism and agnosticism as is commonly believed there is. Being of scientific mind means all your beliefs are tentative anyway; so you can't be absolutely sure there's no god any more than you can be absolutely sure there's no invisible giant sky-goat, or even that the sun will rise tomorrow.So, I'm atheist in so far as rationality allows. That means I could be wrong, which I admit. If that means I'm agnostic then I just don't think there's much difference.(edited to replace "atheist" where I meant "agnostic".)[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-13-2003]

Crash,I meant to send you this in the last post: NOTE: I don’t know, I’m reading a book right now by a guy who thinks just that way: The Mind of God by Paul Davies (Professor of Mathematical Physics)--------------------------------------------------------------------New Topic. Well, I think we both agree--forget labels. Well I think that's close to the question--I wouldn't assume that we have to have a "how" yet. Is it a valid assumption? Do we need to live morally? What even constitutes a "moral" life? What constitutes "right"?If threats weren't necessary to enforce "right" behavior, why do they play such an essential role in world religions?wr/Geno