Why is God the "most reasonable answer to existence"

I agree that while we are still alive, the prospect of eternal nothingness seems a boring end to a rational, conscious being. But boredom and fear would not exist without consciousness.

(And I hope you're right about ultimate somethingness.)

 

Also, if eternal nothingness turns out to be ultimate reality, it seems counterintuitive to the current reality. You know, the one where no matter how small we're able to percieve, there always seems to be something smaller, or no matter how deep into space we percieve, we have not grasped its fullness.

 

I would find the 'fluke' to be more plausible than the 'somebody who's there for a purpose' for the fact that it assumes less. Also, you would still be left with the task of explaining the existence of that somebody and their purpose. To me that task seems equivalent to the original task of explaining existence.

You may think that you are generous only because of Christianity but I doubt it. I am sure you would continue being a good person even if it were somehow proven to you that God and Jesus aren't real.

I am an atheist and I have donated money from every paycheck that I have earned for the last three years to local charities. Why? Because as a (somewhat) intelligent being I am capable of understanding that other beings around me are suffering, and in light of the fact that much of what is great about my life is essentially a matter of chance (for example having been born into a great family, in a good neighborhood) I feel obligated to alleviate some of that suffering. In my mind charity exists at the level of empathy, and understanding. I can't understand how or why one needs religion for that.

I accept the idea that there is an evolutionary explanation for the neural basis of morality, and to some extent I agree with the theories that have been expounded recently on that subject. However that does not at all detract from morality, merely because we have identified a physical basis for it. At the end of the day I do kind things because I genuinely want to help people.

Then what purposes do the doctrines serve? Especially when so much of scripture either has nothing to do with doing good acts, or is in direct opposition to it.

 

I look at it as much the same as deciding whether or not we're brains in a jar. It could be. But it seems intuitively unlikely, and it doesn't much matter anyhow. Granted it could be "intuitively unlikely" because I've been hardwired by evolution to find patterns and agency plausible. But I'm willing to take this line of least resistance because it seems "intuitively unlikely" that anyone has a better answer, and it relates to other assumptions which are useful to my sense of meaning in life. In the final analysis, I'm an existentialist. I choose meaning from available alternatives, consistent of course with science and logic. I operate "as if" there is a purpose, and in that sense have made a "joyfyul bet" on Progressive Christianity.

You're probably right, but let me tell you I had to do some real internal wrestling before I gave up my money, and the final decision involved religious ideation . I think we're programmed by evolution to be empathetic. But we're also programmed by evolution to be religious. Some of us obviously are "liberated" from one or another or both of those tendencies. How does that happen? And if our analytical prowess is able to discern that there's no purpose in the universe, might it not also discern that there's no particular reason to be nice to people. We actually don't know to what extent, if at all, we're programed to be nice, but we do know that under certain circumstances people can be beastly to others on a mass basis. The Nazi experience, Serbian ethnic cleansing, Pol Pot, and U.S water boarding under G.W. Bush come to mind. It's also possible for humans to ascribe to an ideology opposed to altruism. Ayn Rand's objectivists make this the center of their creed, and there are lots of influential people who follow it. I think you're right that I'd probably be altruistic no matter what, because I'm such an inherently nice guy. Its those others I'm worried about.

I'm glad you're feel that way. Obviously many other atheists do, too. In fact I haven't met one who was mean. But if I told you I feel inclined to believe in God because I have an overwhelming sense of awe about existence, would you accept that as a legitimate reason for belief?

Another happy outcome of the flukes of human evolution! If we didn't have attitudes like yours, we'd really be in a mess, and obviously there is evolutionary pressure for a certain level of co-operation for a species that depends on it for its collective survival. Has there possibly been some emergence here?

They might be spandrels--side effects of a set of attitudes and reflexes that have general survival value. I've been in Muslim countries, and felt real admiration for the way Islam works in general in people's lives. Of course, the particulars, like attitudes toward women, mustn't be overlooked and people bent on mischief can twist the Qur'an into a lethal weapon. I live in the Buckle of the Bible Belt and am shocked on a daily basis with some of the notions bible thumpers (like our Senator Inhofe) purport to have about reality. For example, the good Senator thinks human induced global warming is a hoax because God controls climate. I think scriptural literalism of any kind is dangerous. On the other hand, the Bible was the source of the "moment of clarity" (psychotic break, whatever) that changed my life, I think for the better. So I wouldn't want to throw it in the trash can just yet. Some people have managed to avoid the mind-crippling disease that can easily be contracted by toxic faith syndrome.

 

I agree that there must be some explanation for existence, and I was not being completely clear when I said that I would take the 'fluke' to be more likely, but to me it seems impossible to invoke a god as the explanation without running into an infinite regress where you must postulate an endless series of gods creating gods. If the universe demands an explanation, then so too would god. I think that is fair to say, and it makes me doubt the existence of any god.

I consider myself an existentialist, although I operate "as if" there is no purpose, and it is for this reason that I feel I must derive my own meaning. It's interesting how your existentialism is connected to your religion and my existentialism is connected to my atheism.

I think it is like that in general. Some people are good and some are bad, and some are believers and some are not believers, and there is no systematic relationship between any of those.

I don't want to judge your reason, but I would say that I too feel an overwhelming sense of awe about existence but that does not compel me to any sort of religious belief.

 

It is easier for reason to comprehend that there was a 'God' who created the universe then the infinity of the everlasting universe or the finite version of the universe started by a big bang that came out of nothing.
So basically what I mean is that human limitations make 'God' more reasonable than the other options we have so far.

 

Now there's the most reasonable answer I've heard so far.