Making Theism Beneficial
THEISM THAT "DOESN'T WORK"
I have talked to a lot of people who have had terrible experiences with religion. After a bit of discussion, I inevitably discover at least one (usually many) of the following:1. I disagree with what they believed.
2. I disagree with the perspective on what they believe (they have some distorted twist on something).
3. I disagree with the way that they applied what they believed.
One of these things inevitably results in extreme discomfort, to the point that they become extremely motivated to find whatever evidence they can to support their reasons for alleviating this discomfort and tossing all of their beliefs in the trash.
In my opinion, there is a lot of "trash" in theology (just as there was a lot of "trash" in medical science for thousands of years).
PANTS AREN'T MY THING
Here is an analogy to demonstrate the point I am trying to make:
Imagine a person who grew up wearing pants, but they always wore pants that were way too tight and they placed the waist line above their belly button-- resulting in extreme discomfort and a very awkward appearance to others. As an adult, someone says "hey, you don't have to wear pants at all-- come join the nudist colony", and they merrily toss of their pants and then always talk about how painful wearing pants was and how stupid people look who wear pants.
BAD MEDICINE AND GOOD MEDICINE
Making the comparison to medicine, (as I often do), it is a bit like someone who received a placebo or underwent blood-letting for a long time, and then decided that they hated all medical treatments because of their bad experience.
So often I see people group in bad applications of theism with the good and then make a sweeping generalization that "ALL RELIGION IS BAD", citing all of the bad religions or bad people in religion. This is what we call a "Hasty generalization".
There have been very harmful medical treatments and there have been very helpful medical treatments. Maybe you had a bad experience with a medication, or maybe a doctor gave you a false diagnosis, or maybe the outcome of a procedure was not good-- but this does not mean that ALL are always bad.
Similarly, there is a uncomfortable way to wear pants just as there are comfortable ways to wear pants.
So also, though you may have had a bad experience believing in a way that made no sense; was harmful to you and made you extremely uncomfortable-- there also does exist theistic ways of believing and living that are reasonable, practical, and supported by evidence and which are extremely beneficial and comfortable.
Not everyone likes to wear the same type of pants, and that is okay. I am just going to share with you a "style" of beliefs and a way of believing that has been very beneficial and comfortable to me personally.
Not everyone likes to wear the same type of pants, and that is okay. I am just going to share with you a "style" of beliefs and a way of believing that has been very beneficial and comfortable to me personally.
I am going to try and highlight beliefs that have the highest area of overlap across religions but which also does not contradict science. The beliefs that I am presenting are for the most part a rewording of the "RED" area as highlighted in the image above. It is the overlap of the commonality of most religions and spiritual experience, but also the part that does not contradict scientific discovery.
BEFORE THE CREATION
Our universe and all atomic matter has a beginning (13.8 billion years ago) and eventually may have an end. The Creator does not have a beginning or an end, therefore, The Creator must not be made of atomic matter and has the capacity to exist outside of the atomic universe, and with it-- time, thus making the Creator "Eternal".
In the eternal state of existence, before the universe and time existed at all, The Creator fashioned out of its own self, children (and being made of itself, these children are made of the same eternal, non-atomic substance as the Creator). These children were given the gift of free will, and have complete agency to choose whatever they will.
Some of them chose to cooperate with The Creator, and others used their agency to fight contrary to the intention and will of The Creator. The Creator wished to provide opportunities for the children to learn so that they could become more like The Creator if they wished it. The atomic universe was created for this purpose-- to provide an environment of learning amidst agency. It was necessary for true agency to exist. True agency means that those those with free will must exist in an environment where they are truly permitted to make choices and experience the consequence of those choices. If people are prevented from being able to make choices, or if those choices are immediately met with harsh or fatal negative consequences (God hits them with a lightning bolt when they are "bad"), then the agency to have real free will would not exist. Without free will we would not have the capacity to learn and become more like The Creator.
The experience of mortality is essential in our learning and growing process. Some children of The Creator have elected not to experience it. We, however, have chosen it-- knowing that suffering would be a necessary part of our education.
AGENCY AND SUFFERING
Much of the suffering comes from the consequences of the poor exercise of free will. The Creator is not evil, but rather allows evil to exist because of the vast importance of free-will. Unfortunately, evil is an apparently unavoidable side effect of free will, and evil typically results in suffering. Some people distinguish pain from suffering. Some degree of pain is also an apparently necessary part of mortality, and the experience of mortality is necessary for us to learn and grow. Therefore pain and/or suffering are the consequence of circumstances that are necessary for growth and learning as an agent with free-will experiencing a mortal life.
The laws and matter of the universe are in place and can function without interference-- in fact, interference by the Creator can sometimes have the potential upset or disrupt free-will and the natural learning atmosphere that inherently in generated through mortality on earth. The Creator does not need to constantly interfere in the events on earth or even make Itself known to everyone in order for us get important lessons and experiences from our earth experience. An atheist can learn and grow from experiences in earth life, just like a theist can.
The Creator also permits free will for those spirits who fought against it, and who opposed the plan that was proposed to live on earth as a mortal. Just like us, these spirits (though lacking a mortal body) sometimes choose evil and are free to interact with us (our spirits). Just like interaction with other mortals, this spirit-to-spirit interaction sometimes results in confusion or negative experiences.
Sometimes (perhaps, most of the time) confusion or negative experiences are just inherent functions of mortality. Unfortunately, many of these "natural" events (inherent to the atomic universe and the biological machines we live in) have been often wrongly attributed to the direct interference of the Creator or by those who live in the Creators presence. It often became the conclusion that if someone died or got better this was a direct result of either a healing hand or death strike by the Creator or one doing the Creators bidding. It became thought that lighting bolts, storms, and earthquakes were always the direct interference of the Creator.
Obviously this kind of thinking has evolved in many fields of thought, where many things have been falsely attributed to it (radioactivity for example). As I pointed out, the Creator does not need to interfere and such interference could have a more derogatory effect in relation to the long term objective of learning and growth.
ETERNAL LIFE
We also have the free-agency to interact with the Creator, but the Creator will not force itself upon us, in fact, the Creator is hesitant to interact with us in ways that may disrupt our experience of mortality. When a person absolutely knows that they are an immortal spirit in a mortal body, they are no longer living a mortal life-- but an immortal life, or an "eternal life".
Experiencing earth life as a "mortal" is a very different kind of experience than living life knowing that in reality you are an immortal spirit child of the Creator. Forcing a soul to this awareness can be unhelpful and even potentially harmful and limit that souls progress, learning and experiences that may be necessary for them in their eternal progression. The Creator will try not to force this awareness upon any of its children.
Simultaneously, some souls are ready for, would benefit from, and want to come to this awareness of the nature of their soul, eternal life, and The Creator. For some of these, the Creators direct interaction with them would not be inhibitory to their learning, agency, and growth and is actually beneficial.
IMPORTANT "Take aways".
1. YOU ARE SUPER IMPORTANT AND GOD LOVES YOU!
You are a child of the Creator of the Universe. The Creator loves all of us as children.
2. YOUR LIFE HAS PURPOSE!
The purpose of mortal life is to give you the opportunity to learn and grow.
3. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO!
You are an agent of free-will and are accountable for your own decisions.
4. ALL EXPERIENCES CAN BE FOR YOUR BENEFIT!
All experiences can be beneficial to our growth and understanding (even very unpleasant ones).
5. GOD IS GOOD!
The Creator does not cause evil, but it is an apparently unavoidable side effect of true free will.
6. By default, you should assume that most of the time, most of what happens on earth is the result of laws and forces intrinsic to the design of universe itself and not from direct interference by the Creator.
7. By default you should assume that most of the time when people do bad things to you, it is because of the exercise of their own agency, and is not the punishment of an interfering God.
8. Awareness of the Creator won't be forced upon you, but is available to you if you really want it and if it would beneficial for you long term.
Whats up Richard! Cool blog man, this is a lot of fun. Should have checked it out earlier.
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing a post for our conversation, I appreciate the reciprocity. I am gonna dig in though, as they say in the food industry.
In your personal search for truth I think you mulled over the very same thoughts as you posted here on why theism does not work, or more accurately why they do not work for specifically a person.
The difference between the argument I was making and what this blog addresses is not why theism doesn't work for me, but why I believe theism and organized religion is a net negative on the society.
I'll try to define my thought process a little better.
Theism is the belief in a divine creator that intervenes in it and sustains a personal relation to their creatures.
Deism is the belief in a divine creator that has no contact or desire to contact their creations.
Inherently theism presents motive to change the world around us to align to their worldview. Through the creation of organized religions they congregate their support and levy that they hold the only 'truth' and it is a black/white you are either a member or not a member.
You could argue, 'what is the difference between a religion and any other special interest group'?
On the surface, not much, everyone in our society tries to lobby for their own better interests. Yet, the foundation, they are supremely different because religions are highly sectarian. This is due to the believer perspective, you either are or you are not a believer. Creating a foundation for a society that is sectarian creates prejudice, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching relations of inferiority and superiority to differences between subdivisions within a group. I think Christopher Hitchens nailed it when he states that organized religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children".
I think we both have seen enough evidence of this to be true.
I wanted to present a couple thoughts I had when I was reading through this post.
You begin with :"
1. I disagree with what they believed.
2. I disagree with the perspective on what they believe (they have some distorted twist on something).
3. I disagree with the way that they applied what they believed."
I think this applies to anyone that is presented with any information. It is the implication that is important though.
1. I disagree with what they believed. Because (Insert evidence)
2. I disagree with the perspective on what they believe (they have some distorted twist on something). Because (Insert evidence)
3. I disagree with the way that they applied what they believed. Because (Insert evidence)
You claim the motivation is discomfort.
You also imply that the need to alleviate this discomfort is so great that they take any evidence as a reason to change their beliefs (I think you mean any information, because evidence is a completely valid reason to change your beliefs). This implies cognitive dissonance also which is the manipulation of reality to fit your own beliefs, which is dispelled with actual evidence.
I think your example with the pants is a little elementary Richard. I appreciate the ability to simplify something this grand into an example of pants that make you uncomfortable but I think you are also not asking the right questions about the pants.
There is a book called "The Great Apostasy" by James E. Talmage, that is really quite good and really lines up with your explanation about how the roman empire combined with religion became a very evil force in the world.
DeleteThis book explained how Jesus taught a bunch of really good stuff and his followers were all peaceful and loving, but then the roman empire started systematically killing them. They continued to do this until the early 300's AD when Constantine came up with a different strategy and decided to kill all of the priesthood leaders and "adopt" Christianity as the universal religion of the Roman Empire. Then, he continued murdering people, except now under the guise of "Christianity" (the same group he had once murdered, and the group for which he had murdered all of their priesthood leaders).
When Hitler wanted to give the people a simple answer for all of the problems in Germany, he gave a simple scapegoat answer "JEWS!".
Sometimes there are very complex and it can be tempting to give a simple scapegoat answer.
Why are people racist, sexist, intolerant, unkind, close-minded? "THEISM!"
**HOPEFULLY**, you know in your heart of hearts that although there are certainly bad people who also happen to believe that there is a God and happen to attend a church, that believing in God does not make a person racist, sexist, intolerant, unkind and close-minded.
There are some people who feel that all evil comes from atheism, then they site every evil atheist person that they can think of who is bad.
Sometimes sweeping generalizations can be helpful in identification and sometimes they can cause us to come to incorrect conclusions.
(Pt.2)
ReplyDeleteLet us examine the analogy:
"Imagine a person who grew up wearing pants, but they always wore pants that were way too tight and they placed the waist line above their belly button-- resulting in extreme discomfort."
Are they socialized this way to wear pants like this? Did their parents make them wear pants under threats of harm or guilt? Who taught them to wear pants? Are their parents wearing their pants that tight as well?
You present that there are 'others' that they can be social awkward around so they are not completely isolated but it isn't until they are an adult that they find out that they didn't have to wear pants. Are they being controlled, their information is obviously limited, they are not taught to think objectively, and are seemingly oppressed.
You continue:
"... a very awkward appearance to others. As an adult, someone says "hey, you don't have to wear pants at all-- come join the nudist colony", and they merrily toss of their pants"
You present that there are 'others' that they can be social awkward around so they are not completely isolated but it isn't until they are an adult that they find out that they didn't have to wear pants. Are they being controlled, their information is obviously limited, they are not taught to think objectively, and are seemingly oppressed.
So you present a choice, you say pants or nudist colony right? But is this adult the first person that they have ever talked to besides their family? They obviously did not know about other options so between PAIN and FREEDOM they took freedom. Understandably.
You continue:
"then always talk about how painful wearing pants was and how stupid people look who wear pants."
We observe this person going through trauma and without coping mechanisms or outlets they talk about their abuse and trauma. This is common with victims. I think that support groups exist because of this, also therapy, and friendship. I do not think it is appropriate to victim blame, or to judge people that do not have access to support as this now nudist isn't described as getting support after a lifetime of being subjugated to abusive behavior.
This is an oversimplification, much like your bad medicine metaphor that just states that they had a bad experience. Your claim insinuates that like medicine, religion with time will get better? Or will the application of science get better? I am unsure of the premise but I will say that medicine that you deem bad is more than likely the result of religious interference.
(Pt. 3)
ReplyDeleteTo get back to my point though, my argument is not about 'just a bad experience' my argument is about how sectarian organizations (Religion) are inherently:
Violent - most radical extremist movements that adhere to violence are religious.
Irrational - the willing suspension of disbelief.
Intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry - defined in the term.
Invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry - control media, and history.
Contemptuous of women and coercive toward children - treating women as property (biblical).
You say that it is a hasty generalization. Yet, there is proof enough of the abuse of religion on our society, just pick a topic and we can explore how religion has manipulated it.
I don't want to get nitty-gritty about your testimony because that can be viewed as too personal, but as you went out of your way to write a blog post about my perspective is as easily explained away with an analogy about a pair of tight fitting pants I will reciprocate.
It just seems like when it came to the mormon church I think you disagreed with what they believed. You disagreed with the perspective on what they believe (they have some distorted twist on something). You disagreed with the way that they applied what they believed. I think this is why you changed what you believed because you were uncomfortable and had motivation to alleviate that discomfort. Instead of joining a nudist colony you tailored your pants to fit better.
There are plenty of examples of religion gone bad, I can't disagree with you there. I dont think that all religion is good and even the good religions are not ALWAYS good-- sometimes they are bad too. I dont think that all of the ways that people practice their faith is always good. Likewise I dont think that all atheism is good, or that all of the ways that people live their lives who are atheists are good. I dont think that a person is automatically good or bad depending on whether they have been persuaded that there is a God or not.
DeleteThe main point I am trying to make with all of this, is that there can be good medicine, there can be comfortable ways of wearing pants, and there can be healthy, reasonable ways of practicing theism.
I would just warn against hasty generalizations that all theism is bad-- just as I would warn that all atheism is bad, or that all medicine is bad or that all pants or uncomfortable or whatever else.
Many people in religion (including church leaders) have tried to present their version of theism as a package deal: "its ALL right or its ALL wrong and there is no inbetween-- you cant be a "cafeteria believer". (I posted two short blog posts about this idea).
http://truthprocess.blogspot.com/2017/09/buffet-believing.html
I completely reject this notion for reasons that I explain in the blog posts.
For an explanation of how theism can be logical, check out "dragons and God"
http://truthprocess.blogspot.com/2020/07/dragons-and-god.html
I dont really disagree with what you are saying, but I dont think that it accounts for all ways of seeing things-- I would just say that it is incomplete. There is more to this picture and concept. There is more information, more data, more experiences, more perspectives-- some are nonsense, but not all of them are. That is all I am saying-- try to keep an open mind, try not to hastily generalize.