Starting to believe

[Stig]

I have a bit of a problem with this "god in a box" concept because that god's influence is constantly shrinking as science continues to answer these "we don't know" ideas. Why is it so hard to just say: "I don't know" ?

I'd be curious to know what that pastor thinks about the influence of that ever-shrinking god.

I like the idea of god in a box. Sort of like a box of legos or an erector set. I can build god up to my specifications and details any time I want, then If I don't like him/her/it, I can rebuild. I can build a functional god that shoots lasers out of his ass and kills innocent children through starvation, earthquakes, or Justin Bieber albums. If that god is too cruel, I can rebuild a loving, caring, spiritual breast feeding motherly god who cuddles me at night, tucks me in, and then sings angelic versions of Sound Garden albums.

Tired of a mean and nasty god? Rebuild? Tired of a nice motherly god with awesome eternal spirit child bearing hips? Rebuild?

God in a box has endless possibilities!

Oh.My. RR wins another thread!

[deacon blues]

Another great thread that I just got to. (I usually favor doctrine discussions)From beginning to end, this was a wonderful NOM topic, and Stig tied it all together so well I hesitate to add anything. I'm reminded of the many metaphors people use to understand God, from a clay molding Potter to a kind and personal Father, or even a dormant computer. (Any Asimov fans?) For me, I use general attributes- Truth and Love, to describe the God I want to believe in. I can't rule out that God could be anything from a highly advanced alien to a metaphysical force, so I don't. I ponder all possibilities that I can conceive, including no God at all, from time to time, but I still favor my general conception, baring any new conclusive evidence. If anyone has any new evidence or ideas, please share. I enjoy listening to those who do not "know."

[RubinHighlander]

Having given up on the God-of-the-gaps, I have chosen to redirect my worshipful feelings to what is between the gaps. If this magnificent universe could come about by its own natural laws and properties I think it deserves more awe and respect than a clay-molding, lightning-bolt-throwing guy in space.

Did someone/thing flip the switch to get it started? We have no way of knowing. Will anything be waiting for us on the "other side?" Ditto.

One thing I'm pretty certain of, after sitting through this week's Last Days GD lesson, is that the idea of an anthropomorphic deity who is determined to inflict his children with unimaginable pain and horror, simply because they weren't impressed enough by his threats, would have to be a sad and minor character in such an awe-inspiring cosmos. Yes, the universe between the gaps can be harsh, but it doesn't get jealous, throw tantrums and invent creative ways to specifically make us suffer.

+1 for this and also +1 for the empty fridge and simplicity. It took me a while, but I really love being in the IDK place now. IF there is some power or entity out there it's all the way back to the big bang for me.

While standing on the edge of a calm lake in the Uinta mountains, marveling at the stars in the Milky Way, I have enjoyed some dialog with the universe, expressing gratitude for a chance to be a sentient being with the opportunity to sit and wonder at it all. It was an emotional moment and I've had many like it out in the natural world. If my only purpose was to just take time out in my short and small existence to just wonder and ponder it I'm okay with that. If my only purpose is no purpose and I'm a random event in the life of this universe I'm also okay with that. I'm not okay with any of the gods that man has created that are perceived to meddle in our existence or demand worship. If I could have known anything about the joy this freedom from religion has to offer when I was younger, I would have been out of the church a long time ago.

[Silver Girl]

.
As a former convert, now resigned and back to my growing-up years beliefs in God and Christ, I've been interested and also saddened when I see the impact the church's dishonesty has on the ability of former members to believe in God.

For what it's worth, "other churches" (the mainstream ones, at least) do not sell the idea that they're the only true church or that there's no other way to believe in God. They don't claim to have the only ticket to gain entry into Heaven (pay your 10% fee now, and move along). They simply focus on the messages and the teachings in the Bible, and they apply theology studies to interpreting them. They don't claim to have all the answers. They do believe a person we call Christ existed. Some believe the literal concept that Christ died for our sins. Some believe we are each on our own path regarding beliefs on how that all works.

The basic beliefs (as I understand them) are:

1. The world and universe was created by a higher power or being.
2. Evolution is a "thing," but there are too many other amazing elements of the universe to dismiss the idea of a higher being
3. The Seven Days of Creation in Genesis were very likely the way to describe the millions of years during which Earth evolved
4. A very spiritual man named Christ existed, or very likely existed at one time
5. When we 'accept Christ as our savior' we are making a decision to try to live like him
6. Christ dying for our sins is considered in various ways, depending on the church. Some take it more literally than others (see my note below)
7. According to some theologians, the "Virgin Birth" story may be from a common way of praising someone back then as "born of a virgin."
8. God doesn't wave a magic wand to keep bad things from happening to us. We are mortals and live among mortals. Shit happens.
9. Prayer is a way of communicating with God, of getting comfort, and of helping us recognize guidance.
10. Spiritual teachings are meant to be lessons on values, on loving others, etc.
11. Each of us has contact with the Holy Ghost (unless maybe you started a cult in the early 1800s in order to scam people)
12. We can tap into that inner power - this is not something the LDS church has a franchise on. ALL of us can, if we seek with pure hearts, tap it
13. As mentioned, the "mainstream" churches, in general, interpret somewhat as above. Fundamentalists are still fundamental.
14. The above concept suggests that any of us can give blessings. Blessings are not magic wands, though. They're simply a deeper way of understanding.
The stories in the Old Testament may likely reflect the mortal interpretation of things that happened (such as a mass disaster wiping out Sodom and Gomorrah and being "interpreted" as punishment). Some may be legends. Some may be analogies. All can be used as learning tools, but some have the Hell Fire elements that reflect concepts of older generations (Sodom and Gomorrah, for example).

**Regarding the dying for our sins - my personal speculation now is that maybe the "sacrifice" for sins happens when we learn to suppress the "natural man" part of us that can hurt people or be selfish. If we sacrifice that part of ourselves (which is the mortal chid of God in all of us), we are then "saved" and can become more like our Father, God. I hope I explained that okay. That concept came to me during the past two years of my post-Mormon thought processes. I firmly believe much of the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, and much of it reflects the mortal inability to explain something quite remarkable. I also believe many of the Biblical stories are products of the era in which they were written (attitudes toward women, etc.). Those are part of the mortal journey and mortal desire to get closer to God, or to figure out what in the heck God wants from us.

[Enoch Witty]

I have a bit of a problem with this "god in a box" concept because that god's influence is constantly shrinking as science continues to answer these "we don't know" ideas. Why is it so hard to just say: "I don't know" ?

I'd be curious to know what that pastor thinks about the influence of that ever-shrinking god.

I like the idea of god in a box. Sort of like a box of legos or an erector set. I can build god up to my specifications and details any time I want, then If I don't like him/her/it, I can rebuild. I can build a functional god that shoots lasers out of his ass and kills innocent children through starvation, earthquakes, or Justin Bieber albums. If that god is too cruel, I can rebuild a loving, caring, spiritual breast feeding motherly god who cuddles me at night, tucks me in, and then sings angelic versions of Sound Garden albums.

Tired of a mean and nasty god? Rebuild? Tired of a nice motherly god with awesome eternal spirit child bearing hips? Rebuild?

God in a box has endless possibilities!

I actually found this inspiring!

[Newme]

I still like the idea of God, though when I think about what it seems God most likely is not (such as a being who intervenes in the world, for starters), the more God's definition becomes so vague as to be useless. If there's truly a transcendent God whose attributes don't just happen to reflect the reasoning of primates, I guess there must be an afterlife where such things are revealed. If only the concept of an afterlife didn't also muddy the waters further rather than helping explain anything.

I tend to think of God, or that concept as more of a scientist, hands off just letting things move forward. Bound by natural laws. I know people who blame God/Satan for everything good or bad in their life. I can't go there. I think that happens because we live in a world of physical laws- and our bodies and minds are easily pierced.

I read a book called Mr G (Alan Lightman?) years ago. It really changed God from being like me, so something more.

Still wrapping my head around what is my next step. I think it will be to cut some more strings and make more boundaries then get on my bike and make that my church for a while.

Your bike might be the best physically & psychologically thing for you right now.
So, I’d say that’s kind of seeking a higher GOoD.

I’m trying to build my faith again - but my faith is more expansive now.
I believe psych-ology is inseparable to spirituality, so I’m working on that.
What do you want to believe in?

[RubinHighlander]

Lego god sounds pretty cool. After all, you've probably heard all the talk about how god was really actually created in man's image. Dunno about the lasers though.

Everything is awesome!

Wait a minute Fluff! Are you flip flopping to Lego God? What about poor Snuffy!?

For about two years know I've settled into the "I don't know" camp, happy to continue scientific discovery and leaving the gaps as gaps, no need to fill them with anything. I will say I'm no less amazed with the beginning of the universe; that our existence in it could be a random multiverse accident or an intentional design; I guess I put those possibles in a box, but the label is still "I don't know" and I'm not pressured to exercise faith or worship as a subtitle or definition.

[dogbite]

What do you want to believe in?

This is a dangerous starting point. The following is from the Anathem wiki. Diax is fictional, but possible actual sources for the idea are also given.

Diax's Rake

"Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

A warning against wishful thinking attributed to Diax, who once chased fortune tellers away from a temple with a garden rake before cautioning his colleagues with the words that would go on to form the Rake.

Suspected Reference

This may be a reference to Thucydides, who said, "…t is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire."[1]

Another possibility is Francis Bacon: "The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside or rejects[.]"

http://anathem.wikia.com/wiki/Diax%27s_Rake

[wtfluff]

Lego god sounds pretty cool. After all, you've probably heard all the talk about how god was really actually created in man's image. Dunno about the lasers though.

Everything is awesome!

Wait a minute Fluff! Are you flip flopping to Lego God? What about poor Snuffy!?

For about two years know I've settled into the "I don't know" camp, happy to continue scientific discovery and leaving the gaps as gaps, no need to fill them with anything. I will say I'm no less amazed with the beginning of the universe; that our existence in it could be a random multiverse accident or an intentional design; I guess I put those possibles in a box, but the label is still "I don't know" and I'm not pressured to exercise faith or worship as a subtitle or definition.

Lego god was W_A_Y back in June.

I've moved on to imaginary friend gods.

Dear, Kind, Eternal Snuffleupagus... Is everything still awesome?

[Newme]

What do you want to believe in?

This is a dangerous starting point. The following is from the Anathem wiki. Diax is fictional, but possible actual sources for the idea are also given.

Diax's Rake

"Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

A warning against wishful thinking attributed to Diax, who once chased fortune tellers away from a temple with a garden rake before cautioning his colleagues with the words that would go on to form the Rake.

Suspected Reference

This may be a reference to Thucydides, who said, "…t is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire."[1]

Another possibility is Francis Bacon: "The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion ... draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside or rejects[.]"

http://anathem.wikia.com/wiki/Diax%27s_Rake

I think I understand why you want to believe "wanting to believe" is dangerous.
Cognitive dissonance is a challenge for more than just herd-thinkers. "Thinking with integrity is paradoxical thinking." It's difficult to really think of 2 opposing ideas simultaneously, and yet if you're interested in truth - you'll engage in such mental exercise regularly - as much as you can.

What I meant when I asked him "What do you want to believe in" is "what is important to you right now - what do you hope?"
I wouldn't ask such a question to most TBMs because they're still under mind-control so they don't really know what they think or want.
But as NOM's, we're breaking away from that oppressive thinking habit, and learning to figure out what we, individually think and want.
And it's not all that easy! I can see many NOMs simply switch herd mentalities -from prissy Mormon to insane Leftist - because they want so freaking badly to fit in and not feel like a puney weak individual - so they identify with a group deemed to be more powerful than they are on their own.

[dogbite]

Here's a restatement of that by Ernest Hemingway in The Sun Also Rises:

"Isn't it pretty to think so."

[Ghost]

What do you want to believe in?

This is a dangerous starting point. The following is from the Anathem wiki. Diax is fictional, but possible actual sources for the idea are also given.

Diax's Rake

"Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

How far can you take this, though? I'm convinced that there are all kinds of things that are very important to us that we simply "choose to believe." That human life has any value at all, that our relationships matter, that we have free will, that it even makes sense to think of ourselves as selves, just to list a few examples.

Do we really have any more reason to believe these things than to believe in God? Or are they simply functional beliefs that let us approach life in a way that works, practically and emotionally?

[dogbite]

There are logical and philosophical paths to support all of those positions (and challenges to some). But the strength of the arguments has a lot to do with what you set as basic assumptions and how few of them you make.

Rigorous skepticism and challenges of the assumptions is how you strengthen your arguments rather than adding new assumptions without sound basis just because you like or want them.

You are right to wonder how far to take it and to take it as far back as you can. If the premise can't be supported, it is suspect. That is not to say it must of necessity be discarded. Utilitarian points have their own merit though what degree to value them is also a debate and an important one.

And there are some points that are challenging to all of these systems such as the hard problem of consciousness, the nonidentity problem, the elusiveness of Truth in language (Tarski and the semantic theory of Truth) and so on.

The explanatory power and testable aspects of a world view reveals it's strengths and weaknesses. Starting with a recipe for cognitive bias, self deception and confirmation bias (what you want to believe) is inherently flawed.

[Ghost]

I appreciate your thoughts on this, dogbite.

Do you think we ever really start from axioms we've established through reason? Or must our search for meaning and "reality" always start and end with emotion and instinct, and thinking that we are doing otherwise is delusion?

Sometimes I think that utility is all we really have, no matter what happens to be "true," and that a framework of religious belief can work just as well as convincing ourselves that we're digging down to find some sort of unassailable foundation. By what standard do we even favor one approach over another, aside from arbitrary preference?

As you mentioned, you don't have to look very hard to find a flaw in any framework or assumption that you might adopt to even begin trying to make sense of the world. And even if one day we manage to figure it all out and align our beliefs with some elusive objective reality, what will that really do for us other than give us a fleeting sense of satisfaction before we die and are soon forgotten?

[dogbite]

I think utilitarian philosophy is strong personally but many struggle with the moral implications. I'm also strongly evidencialist. So yes, I think much of common morality is rather arbitrary and weakly supported.

I don't think there is an absolute reason or meaning to all of this. The reason is to find your reason isn't a terrible concept though tautological to a degree. Finding your own meaning. However, in finding your own meaning, you can save a lot of time and deadends by studying the field even just a little bit.

I try to avoid belief. The concept is based in unsupportable ideas for the starting point. I try to work with facts and form opinions from those facts. Recognizing those opinions are provisional to various degrees pending further evidence.

There is lots of talk of the technological singularity in our near future. A rather less grasped corollary is an opposite semantic apocalypse tied into how the singularity ramifies through humanity. No more Homo sapiens, we become Homo deus.

Kayaanisqatsi in new clothes.

[Mad Jax]

Then the pastor mentioned taking all the ideas we don't know, or don't have evidence for and putting them in a box labelled God- and leaving it at that.

I have a bit of a problem with this "god in a box" concept because that god's influence is constantly shrinking as science continues to answer these "we don't know" ideas. Why is it so hard to just say: "I don't know" ?

I'd be curious to know what that pastor thinks about the influence of that ever-shrinking god.

I'm the same way with the "god of the gaps" idea, but that's how some people deal with their loss of faith and having shared that painful experience, I just kind of live and let live. I'm at the point where I'm content not being part of some bigger picture, though I haven't entirely abandoned the idea that we are. Just because reality is so strange a thing when one thinks of it. But I agree the "evidence within the mysteries" is definitely growing thinner.

[Emower]

The explanatory power and testable aspects of a world view reveals it's strengths and weaknesses. Starting with a recipe for cognitive bias, self deception and confirmation bias (what you want to believe) is inherently flawed.

So, I get what you are saying. Inherently flawed though, depends on what a person want to govern their life. If it is logic and reason then it is flawed. If it is emotion and feeling then asking what you want to believe is perfectly valid I think?

[trophywife26.2]

I have so much emotional baggage around the word God that I can't use that word to describe goodness or truth or beauty anymore. It'd be nice and convenient if I could, but I can't.

I got this wonderful book that I read to my children: https://www.amazon.com/I-Wonder-Annaka- ... s=i+wonder

It's all about how some questions in life will remain unresolved and learning to accept that. I struggle with those concepts, but I'm starting to get there.

[trophywife26.2]

Also my advice for figuring out what you believe. I'm going to try therapy and see where that gets me.

For now, this is pretty much where I'm at:

“For me, I am driven by two main philosophies: know more today about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you.”


― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Basically, be a lifelong learner and try to leave the world a better place in some way.

[dogbite]

So, I get what you are saying. Inherently flawed though, depends on what a person want to govern their life. If it is logic and reason then it is flawed. If it is emotion and feeling then asking what you want to believe is perfectly valid.

I don't think so. There is manipulated emotion as we well know in the church. There are emotional fictions we enjoy in film and story. And there is the authenticity of emotion lived. Certainly the meaning I mentioned before is based in emotion for most of us. Those we love for example is meaningful.

I think we agree there is a marked difference in those experiences, though they trigger on the same emotional lines. To live inside a mental fantasy can only be described as valid from within the fantasy. From without, it is mental illness. And it is quantifiable illness to the degree it hampers their interaction with others and achieving a self sustaining life.

It is not perfectly nor even equally valid. Entertainments have their place. But to create a fiction to deny reality, or even only parts of it, as a world view is pretty much the definition of delusional.