I think (and you wouldn’t be the first to do it, so this isn’t personal) you have a very primitive understanding of theism. Dawkin’s arguments against God were blissful child-like ignorance at best, and wilful egoism at worst. They could each be easily rebutted and set aside on rational grounds. I struggle to follow alongside this essay when its launching pad is built upon sand.
The suffering and evil present in the world has no bearing on God’s existence. I’ve always failed to buy into that idea. Sure, it sucks. But it has no bearing on the metaphysical reality of a God. If God does not save children—yikes I guess? What difference does it make? A creator as powerful as has been hypothesised can do whatever he wants; any arguments from rationalism be damned.
I also find that this essay drips with a sort of condescension. Like, it’s almost as if you’re telling a coming-of-age story in which people emerge as perfect rationalists once they ‘overcome’ the ‘big bad belief’ that is the gauntlet of religion. I find that notion to be utterly ridiculous.
I’m not trying to get into a religious debate here; your tone seems to be that your mind is made up about that. I am good faith curious though on the reasons for your belief. Without that, I can’t read past the Yin and Yang bit in detail.
The suffering and evil present in the world has no bearing on God’s existence. I’ve always failed to buy into that idea. Sure, it sucks. But it has no bearing on the metaphysical reality of a God. If God does not save children—yikes I guess? What difference does it make? A creator as powerful as has been hypothesised can do whatever he wants; any arguments from rationalism be damned.
Of course, the existence of pointless suffering isn’t an argument against the existence of a god. But it is an old argument against the existence of a god who deserves to be worshipped with sincerity. We might even admit that there is a cruel deity, and still say non serviam, which I think is a more definite act of atheism than merely doubting any deity’s existence.
Different religions (sometimes the same religion in different times) had different conceptions of gods. There could be one or many. Creator of the universe, or merely one of its first immortal inhabitants. The most powerful of all, or just one of the many powerful ones such as fates, titans, giants… Existing outside the universe, or in the universe. Infinitely strong/smart/good, or merely very strong one and sometimes not even particularly smart or good. The one you should obey because he is the goodness itself, or simply the one you should obey because he is stronger than you.
The conception of the sole creator God outside the universe who is infinitely strong/smart/good (only limited by logical consistency and his own previous decisions) and is goodness itself, is the Christian one. Other religions may disagree. Dawkins argued against the god of the religion he was most familiar with, which was the strongest one in his country.
When you remove the “is goodness itself” part, you remove the moral reason why one should obey such god. There still remain practical reasons, if he is still the stronger one, of course. But for the purpose of the topic of this article… an unbelief in a good god implies existential horror. A god that is not necessarily good, is more likely to be evil than good. The proper response is either to fight him, or to fear the future—whether you obey him or not—because you know that he is not “aligned” with you; he does not care about your well-being, just like he does not care about the well-being of the suffering children. The god becomes just another disinterested, bored, hungry bear looking at you and evaluating you as a potential food.
Its not merely the rejection of God, its a story of “progress” to reject also reverence of nature and eventually, even life and reality itself, presumably so we can accept mass extinction for morally superior machines.
I think (and you wouldn’t be the first to do it, so this isn’t personal) you have a very primitive understanding of theism. Dawkin’s arguments against God were blissful child-like ignorance at best, and wilful egoism at worst. They could each be easily rebutted and set aside on rational grounds. I struggle to follow alongside this essay when its launching pad is built upon sand.
The suffering and evil present in the world has no bearing on God’s existence. I’ve always failed to buy into that idea. Sure, it sucks. But it has no bearing on the metaphysical reality of a God. If God does not save children—yikes I guess? What difference does it make? A creator as powerful as has been hypothesised can do whatever he wants; any arguments from rationalism be damned.
I also find that this essay drips with a sort of condescension. Like, it’s almost as if you’re telling a coming-of-age story in which people emerge as perfect rationalists once they ‘overcome’ the ‘big bad belief’ that is the gauntlet of religion. I find that notion to be utterly ridiculous.
I’m not trying to get into a religious debate here; your tone seems to be that your mind is made up about that. I am good faith curious though on the reasons for your belief. Without that, I can’t read past the Yin and Yang bit in detail.
In respect to the rest of your post, I’ll reference Open Source AI Spirits, Rituals, and Practices (noduslabs.com) which covers a lot of what you talk about already. Bodymind Operating Systems | HackerNoon led by a guy named Dmitry Paranyushkin explores a lot of your talking points quite extensively.
Of course, the existence of pointless suffering isn’t an argument against the existence of a god. But it is an old argument against the existence of a god who deserves to be worshipped with sincerity. We might even admit that there is a cruel deity, and still say non serviam, which I think is a more definite act of atheism than merely doubting any deity’s existence.
Different religions (sometimes the same religion in different times) had different conceptions of gods. There could be one or many. Creator of the universe, or merely one of its first immortal inhabitants. The most powerful of all, or just one of the many powerful ones such as fates, titans, giants… Existing outside the universe, or in the universe. Infinitely strong/smart/good, or merely very strong one and sometimes not even particularly smart or good. The one you should obey because he is the goodness itself, or simply the one you should obey because he is stronger than you.
The conception of the sole creator God outside the universe who is infinitely strong/smart/good (only limited by logical consistency and his own previous decisions) and is goodness itself, is the Christian one. Other religions may disagree. Dawkins argued against the god of the religion he was most familiar with, which was the strongest one in his country.
When you remove the “is goodness itself” part, you remove the moral reason why one should obey such god. There still remain practical reasons, if he is still the stronger one, of course. But for the purpose of the topic of this article… an unbelief in a good god implies existential horror. A god that is not necessarily good, is more likely to be evil than good. The proper response is either to fight him, or to fear the future—whether you obey him or not—because you know that he is not “aligned” with you; he does not care about your well-being, just like he does not care about the well-being of the suffering children. The god becomes just another disinterested, bored, hungry bear looking at you and evaluating you as a potential food.
Its not merely the rejection of God, its a story of “progress” to reject also reverence of nature and eventually, even life and reality itself, presumably so we can accept mass extinction for morally superior machines.