The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[Sparko]

Yeah, I'm ping-ponging between the two of you. And you are amazingly similar in your styles and discourse maturity.



Sparko - you definitely have a hard time with analogies. The point was not to compare Christianity to caves. The point was to show the weakness of an argument from fear.

And you were acting as if hedging your bet would ruin your life, having to live in a cave instead of a home. Going with Christianity isn't a hardship. It made my life better. So if doing something that makes you a better person, and have a better life also "hedges your bet" in the afterlife, why not?

If God is not real, I have still had a better life on Earth than if I lived as if God was not real, which I did for 40 years.

Because Pascal's wager has a very simple 2x2 assessment matrix. I actually DO use the same construct for basic decision making, and have taught my boys how to use it. But it is always with an emphasis on likelihood, evidence, and consequences - not just consequences.

It is still making a decision based on a fear.

[carpedm9587]

And you were acting as if hedging your bet would ruin your life, having to live in a cave instead of a home.

Actually - no. But why do it when the risk is virtually non-existent. It's an argument based on fear - not truth.

Going with Christianity isn't a hardship. It made my life better. So if doing something that makes you a better person, and have a better life also "hedges your bet" in the afterlife, why not?

Because I would be claiming to believe something I do not actually believe. I would be lying. And despite the frequent number of times I am called dishonest in these threads, I'm actually not. Beliefs need to be based on what is perceived to be true, not what one is afraid might be true.

If God is not real, I have still had a better life on Earth than if I lived as if God was not real, which I did for 40 years.

And I would be a liar for the rest of my life.

It is still making a decision based on a fear.

No. It is making a decision based on evidence and probability, and fear is merely one component of that decision. The decision is not based on fear.

[Sparko]

Actually - no. But why do it when the risk is virtually non-existent. It's an argument based on fear - not truth.

I just told you. Because your life would be better. And the lives of those around you would be better because you would be better.

Because I would be claiming to believe something I do not actually believe. I would be lying.

Or, you could be saying, "I am not sure, but I want you to be real God, so I will live as if you are, please, if you are there, show yourself to me."

[carpedm9587]

I just told you. Because your life would be better. And the lives of those around you would be better because you would be better.

And that claim has no substance, Sparko. I was once Christian, remember? My life did not become "worse" when I became atheist. Indeed, it became better in several measurable ways, and worse in one that I can think of. And my life would not be better if I had to live it knowing I was a chronic liar.

IOr, you could be saying, "I am not sure, but I want you to be real God, so I will live as if you are, please, if you are there, show yourself to me."

I don't "want" things to be real or not real, Sparko. I simply try to find out what is and is not real. When we "want" something to be real, we usually find ways to convince ourselves they are - whether or not they are - and that is not an honest path. I made the decision, long ago, to follow the real - not to impose my needs/wants on it.

As for living my life as if god is real - I frankly have no clue what I would be doing differently in my life if I actually believed in a god. Pray, I suppose. Go to church. Other than that, I would pretty much continue being who I am. I did not change who I was when I stopped believing god was real. I doubt I would substantially change if I suddenly found the evidence to suggest he/she/it actually is. Contrary to popular opinion, atheists don't necessarily become degenerate cretins

[Doug Shaver]

How can you be sure?

I can't be perfectly certain, because I'm capable of error.

And you?

[Tassman]

Yeah but if I am wrong, I just cease to exist. If you are wrong...ouch.

This is merely a variation of Pascal's Wager. It is based on fear and an attempt to deceive God (if he existed) that you believe something which you really, deep down, don't believe in order to trick Him.

Unless I am right about once saved always saved

Baseless superstition!

I just told you. Because your life would be better. And the lives of those around you would be better because you would be better.

If this were true, how come the most religious country in the free world, the USA, is the most inequitable and violent.

[Sparko]

I can't be perfectly certain, because I'm capable of error.

And you?

I can't be 100% certain either, but my studies and events in my life have given me a strong faith.

[carpedm9587]

I can't be 100% certain either, but my studies and events in my life have given me a strong faith.

You took the words right out of my mouth...

[Mountain Man]

The proposition being debated is whether or not humanity continues to need god as we continue to move forward with our understanding of the universe and science.

What do you mean by "need God"? If someone regards God as a cosmic safety blanket or the ultimate explanation for anything we don't understand then, yes, I suppose an increase in knowledge might alleviate one of this "need".

But that's not the God I know. The God I know is the almighty creator and sustainer of all that exists. It makes no sense to me to suggest that we will no longer "need" God just because we have increased our understanding of the majesty and complexity of his creation.

To put it simply, if it's true that God exists, then us having a greater understanding of the universe doesn't make his existence less true.

[Tassman]

I can't be 100% certain either, but my studies and events in my life have given me a strong faith.

OTOH, "my studies and events in my life" have done the reverse.

[carpedm9587]

What do you mean by "need God"?

If the idea of god is still pertinent to understanding our cosmos.

If someone regards God as a cosmic safety blanket or the ultimate explanation for anything we don't understand then, yes, I suppose an increase in knowledge might alleviate one of this "need".

Exactly.

But that's not the God I know. The God I know is the almighty creator and sustainer of all that exists. It makes no sense to me to suggest that we will no longer "need" God just because we have increased our understanding of the majesty and complexity of his creation.

To put it simply, if it's true that God exists, then us having a greater understanding of the universe doesn't make his existence less true.

And if god does not exist, as I believe, then our expanding ability to explain the universe and understand our place in it will diminish the general need for a belief in god. There will always be those who cling to it, of course, but most of humanity will likely move on, which appears to be what we are seeing. In the Major developed countries, "Nones" are the fastest growing segment of our society. Some of those are, of course, people who do not claim association with any formal religious grouping/theology. Many (most?) are people like me, who have rejected the suggestion that a supreme being actually exists.

[Doug Shaver]

I can't be 100% certain either, but my studies and events in my life have given me a strong faith.

Fair enough. My studies and events in my life have led me to feel strongly confident that philosophical naturalism is the correct approach to understanding the universe.

[Mountain Man]

If the idea of god is still pertinent to understanding our cosmos.



Exactly.



And if god does not exist, as I believe, then our expanding ability to explain the universe and understand our place in it will diminish the general need for a belief in god. There will always be those who cling to it, of course, but most of humanity will likely move on, which appears to be what we are seeing. In the Major developed countries, "Nones" are the fastest growing segment of our society. Some of those are, of course, people who do not claim association with any formal religious grouping/theology. Many (most?) are people like me, who have rejected the suggestion that a supreme being actually exists.

I see... so you don't want this thread to be a debate about God's existence. We're just supposed to accept the premise that he doesn't exist and then vacuously pontificate about how long it'll take before man's "mastery" of the universe overrides his need to believe in a "sky daddy".

Whatever.

[Mountain Man]

I can't be 100% certain either, but my studies and events in my life have given me a strong faith.

From a philosophical standpoint, we can't know anything with 100% certainty. But I'm OK with that, because all I need is reasonable certainty, and I'm reasonably certain that God exists, and that the Bible is his revelation to us.

[carpedm9587]

I see... so you don't want this thread to be a debate about God's existence. We're just supposed to accept the premise that he doesn't exist and then vacuously pontificate about how long it'll take before man's "mastery" of the universe overrides his need to believe in a "sky daddy".

Actually, no one said anything about what you should or should not believe. The OP was about a debate in which the idea of the relationship between "needing god" (presumably to understand the cosmos - the debate question was pretty badly worded) diminished as we learn more about our cosmos via science. I'm further interested in knowing if folks here think that this dynamic is in any way related to the growth of secularism. Is it possible that this is a simple winnowing process? Those who cling to "god of the gaps" thinking tend to fall away while those who do not remain faithful to their theistic roots?