Horror of the bible

[amhartley]

Hello,
In his signature block one of our JREF members quotes Thomas Paine:
"To read the bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man."
I just mailed this member that I'd be starting a thread on this intriguing statement.

It is quite true that Christianity is horrific. The Old Testament Jews were scared to death of seeing God. Upon meeting Jesus in the New Testament, the demons shrank back. In the present day, we are so afraid of the Biblical God that we replace Him with a benevolent grandfather who "loves and accepts us just the way we are." It is just what you'd expect from human nature.

But the Biblical God is a holy, righteous terror, Who doesn't put up with sin or any imperfection, in you or me. That's one of the greatest proofs that humans didn't make Him up; we would have created (in Paine's words) a more "tender, sympathising, and benevolent" God.
-Andrew

[Darat]

Coincidentally I've just quoted these loving, kind and heart warming words of the living God in another thread:


Matthew 10:21-22, 34-39

Brother will betray brother to death, and the father his child; children will turn against their parents and send them to their death. All will hate you for your allegiance to me; but the man who holds out to the end will be saved….You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me; no man is worthy of me who cares for son or daughter; no man is worthy of me who does not take up his cross and walk in my footsteps. By gaining his life a man will lose it; by losing his life for my sake, he will gain it.

[rocketdodger]

That's one of the greatest proofs that humans didn't make Him up; we would have created (in Paine's words) a more "tender, sympathising, and benevolent" God.


Rather, that's one of the greatest proofs that religion was propagated by the sadistic "ruling" class, who certainly do not share the general benevolence of the rest of their species.

[I less than three logic]

Hello,
In his signature block one of our JREF members quotes Thomas Paine:
"To read the bible without horror, we must undo every thing that is tender, sympathising, and benevolent in the heart of man."
I just mailed this member that I'd be starting a thread on this intriguing statement.
Ah, yes, that is a common quote of Thomas Paine. Perhaps you’d be interested in the whole paragraph from which that particular sentence was taken.
It is not the antiquity of a tale that is any evidence of its truth; on the contrary, it is a symptom of its being fabulous; for the more ancient any history pretends to be, the more it has the resemblance of a fable. The origin of every nation is buried in fabulous tradition, and that of the Jews is as much to be suspected as any other. To charge the commission of acts upon the Almighty, which, in their own nature, and by every rule of moral justice, are crimes, as all assassination is, and more especially the assassination of infants, is matter of serious concern. The Bible tells us, that those assassinations were done by the express command of God. To believe, therefore, the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God; for wherein could crying or smiling infants offend? And to read the Bible without horror, we must undo everything that is tender, sympathizing, and benevolent in the heart of man. Speaking for myself, if I had no other evidence that the Bible is fabulous than the sacrifice I must make to believe it to be true, that alone would be sufficient to determine my choice.
You can read Paine’s The Age of Reason here (http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/reason/intro.htm), online in its entirety.

[RandFan]

That's one of the greatest proofs that humans didn't make Him up; we would have created (in Paine's words) a more "tender, sympathising, and benevolent" God. This is a common miscnoseption and a fallacy about human nature. In fact humans are diverse and the many and diverse dieties that they demonstrably do make up change from culture to culture. One only need look at the Greek and Roman panoply to find gods that were not tender, sypathising or benevolent. By your logic the greek gods are real.

[Scott Haley]

Hello,
That's one of the greatest proofs that humans didn't make Him up; we would have created (in Paine's words) a more "tender, sympathising, and benevolent" God.
-Andrew

By this logic, you'd have to believe that Quetzalcoatl and the various destroyer gods from Hinduism like Kali are also real.

[JamesDillon]

I'm glad to see that my signature file, and the wisdom of Mr. Paine, has sparked a discussion. I don't have a lot to contribute at the moment, but I'll paste in my reply to Andrew's PM:

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for your PM, and welcome to the forums. I'm with you right up until the last part, but frankly I think there are plenty of very persuasive reasons why the elite members of ancient Jewish society would have created a terrifying rather than benevolent deity; it all goes to establishing and maintaining social order and, of course, keeping those at the top of the hierarchy in their place. It's also a way of psychologically coping with the brutal world in which they found themselves. Moreover, your argument that humans would have invented a kinder, gentler deity rather falls flat when one considers that many other cultures worshipped bloodthirsty gods which we can, I hope, agree were purely figments of their imagination? Christianity is far from being the only religion founded on human sacrifice, after all.

I don't have a lot of time to get into this at the moment, but I look forward to discussing it further in your thread.

James

[LordoftheLeftHand]

But the Biblical God is a holy, righteous terror, Who doesn't put up with sin or any imperfection, in you or me. That's one of the greatest proofs that humans didn't make Him up; we would have created (in Paine's words) a more "tender, sympathising, and benevolent" God.



You point out that the god of the bible is not the kind of god you would have created. You consider that proof of the god of the bible's existence? Most of us have set our bar of what constitutes proof just a wee bit higher than that.

LLH

[Godmode]

Considering in the old testament God was very scary, and in the new one he got quite a bit more cuddly, one could argue that Jesus was there to save god more then humans. Who can love a monster?

[JamesDillon]

Who can love a monster?

But the Old Testament god wasn't particularly concerned with being loved, was he? He was all about obedience and terror. Which no doubt worked quite well in keeping a culture intact in the rather brutal conditions of the ancient Middle East.

[Tricky]

By this logic, you'd have to believe that Quetzalcoatl and the various destroyer gods from Hinduism like Kali are also real.
...and Cthulhu is the realest of all.

[Jimbo07]

waiting for amhartley's reply...

[ceo_esq]

By this logic, you'd have to believe that Quetzalcoatl and the various destroyer gods from Hinduism like Kali are also real.

Would the same logic necessarily apply in the case of polytheistic pantheons? Those gods are balanced out by other deities with different attributes, after all.

[I less than three logic]

Would the same logic necessarily apply in the case of polytheistic pantheons? Those gods are balanced out by other deities with different attributes, after all.
What logic? It is an argument based on a false premise.

If man crated God, God would be nice.
God isn’t nice.
Therefore, man did not crate God.

The first premise is incorrect. There is no reason to believe that a God crated by man would be nice. In fact, it is quite the contrary. A God designed to invoke fear would be far more useful in instilling obedience than a God that is "tender, sympathizing, and benevolent".

[Meadmaker]

It must be true, because no one could make this stuff up!

(I'm more sympathetic to religion than the average JREFer, but this argument is one that I just can't wrap my mind around.)

[bruto]

I don't think Andrew has a sufficiently dark view of human nature.

If people invented a warm fuzzy cuddly God, they could not use divine orders as an excuse for their horrid and vicious behavior. Even when some corrupter like Jesus Christ comes along and tries to veneer the old bastard with love and forgiveness and all that crap, we find a way to turn it around so we can oppress and kill each other with holy zeal. Except for the superpowers, Jehovah is the most human of gods.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't think Andrew has a sufficiently dark view of human nature.

If people invented a warm fuzzy cuddly God, they could not use divine orders as an excuse for their horrid and vicious behavior. Even when some corrupter like Jesus Christ comes along and tries to veneer the old bastard with love and forgiveness and all that crap, we find a way to turn it around so we can oppress and kill each other with holy zeal. Except for the superpowers, Jehovah is the most human of gods.

If you're interested in a good argument as to why man would create a ~cuddly diety; read Shermer's How We Believe. A fair amount of the book deals with that issue.

[Beady]

waiting for amhartley's reply...

Did you bring something to occupy your time?

[Beerina]

What logic? It is an argument based on a false premise.

If man crated God, God would be nice.
God isn’t nice.
Therefore, man did not crate God.

The first premise is incorrect. There is no reason to believe that a God crated by man would be nice. In fact, it is quite the contrary. A God designed to invoke fear would be far more useful in instilling obedience than a God that is "tender, sympathizing, and benevolent".

Exactly. If someone sat down to create a god, one might do that -- from our perspective.

But as religion developed from a combination of superstition and, hey, people will give me money for nuthin', well, a scary god does a better job of explaining superstition as well as convincing people to give you money, also a superstitious behavior. See also: prayer, sacrifice

[UrsulaV]

That's one of the greatest proofs that humans didn't make Him up; we would have created (in Paine's words) a more "tender, sympathising, and benevolent" God.
-Andrew

As others have said, if that's one of the greatest proofs, boy howdy--I'd hate to see some of the weaker ones!

Does this mean that because Jesus was tender and sympathizing, it's proof humans DID make him up?

In order to make this argument with a straight face, you'd first have to prove that humans never invented a mean, powerful, vicious god, and that all gods invented by humans were tender and sympathetic. This still wouldn't prove that humans didn't make up Jehovah, mind you, it'd just prove that, were it a creation, it would be a unique one. However, the issue won't arise, 'cos, I can think of a half-dozen examples of big mean powerful deities that must be appeased the world over without breaking a sweat, and that doesn't even get into Cthulhu and other such modern creations, or the various small, capricious, judgemental critters of susperstition like fairies that have the same irrational and arbitrary cruelty goin' on, on a much smaller scale.

I don't think your argument holds water. Do you have any way to prove that humans are incapable of creating a mean god, and thus the mean god must exist, that wouldn't apply equally well to Kali, Rangda, the Lords of Xilbalba (surely if humans had invented them, they would have picked kinder and more benevolent names than "Scab Stripper" and "Lord of Pus"!) etc, etc?

[Anacoluthon64]

But the Biblical God is a holy, righteous terror, Who doesn't put up with sin or any imperfection, in you or me. That's one of the greatest proofs that humans didn't make Him up; we would have created (in Paine's words) a more "tender, sympathising, and benevolent" God.
-AndrewOn that basis, and in addition to the objections raised by other posters in this thread, Satan would outweigh god by several orders of magnitude on the reality-meter. I'm not sure Christians would be happy with that consequence.

'Luthon64

[Roboramma]

However the idea of god came about, one of the reasons many people continue to believe it is because it helps them to explain the world.

They aren't necessarily believeing things because that's the way that they want them to be (though often that is the case), but sometimes its because in their limited experience that thing seems true.
And the world isn't cuddly and nice. It's pretty hard to believe in an omnibenevolent god. Especially when there's a drought and your third child just died. But one who's punishing you for your transgressions? Or because he feels like testing you? Or whatever?
That seems to me a little easier to come to grips with.

So no, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the gods people invented were complete bastards. If you think the world is run by a god, based on a lot of people's experience he'd have to be a bastard.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Exactly. If someone sat down to create a god, one might do that -- from our perspective.

But as religion developed from a combination of superstition and, hey, people will give me money for nuthin', well, a scary god does a better job of explaining superstition as well as convincing people to give you money, also a superstitious behavior. See also: prayer, sacrifice

Exactly. The growth of organized religion can be traced back to the codefication of existing societal rules as human beings transitioned from small tribes to larger communities. As traditional forms of social enforcement (such as shunning) became less effective (since our number of associates grew greater than ~150) a more structured form of rules were needed.

[Jimbo07]

Did you bring something to occupy your time?

Bah... I have work to fill the time between posts! :D

[ceo_esq]

What logic? It is an argument based on a false premise.

Yes, but the post by Scott Haley (and, indirectly, the one by RandFan that preceded it) to which I was replying was essentially assuming arguendo that the premise was true (something we do in logic sometimes), and I was responding in kind.

[I less than three logic]

Yes, but the post by Scott Haley (and, indirectly, the one by RandFan that preceded it) to which I was replying was essentially assuming arguendo that the premise was true (something we do in logic sometimes), and I was responding in kind.
I can see how it would seem I was directing this comment at you. Let me apologize, as that was not my intention. Your post just happened to be at the bottom of the list when I was reading this thread again.

I should have stated more clearly that my comment was directed at the string of posts pertaining to the logic being used. The logic is faulty, and, therefore, should not (better yet, can not) be applied to any reasoning.

[St.JosemariaOraProNo]

I'm not as bright or smart or well read as most of you, and if you say amhartley's opening premises is untrue or breaks the rules of logic, then I’ll take your word for it.

However, as I was reading the responses… then Kili is real… then many of the gods in the Greek pantheon are real… or this god is real… and then this god is real… it occurred to me that maybe some of you have missed a crucial point there. Why is it that every human culture has “made up” the divine?

Sure, there are the standard answers, like “the growth of organized religion can be traced back to the codefication of existing societal rules as human beings transitioned from small tribes to larger communities”, “means of coercion”, yada, yada, yada. But as any first year graduate cultural anthropology student will tell these explanations are painful in their simplicity, and really miss the mark altogether. The survival of organized religion in the technological world is sufficient evidence alone, without having to go into detail about specific ancient or modern isolated cultures.

In the end, the only viable explanation is that something is wired into our pyches that propels us away from the isolation of the self, and embraces the other, and this inclination can not be satisfied unless it reaches out toward the totally Other. Only the “creation” of the divine can satisfy.

Of course, the question has to be asked. Can there be a desire without an object? Is it better for the human person to deny the object as a figment of man’s collective imagination, and live as though there were no God? Doesn’t that in the end wind up doing violence to what is naturally in man?

Pascal, another person far smarter than I, said basically the same thing as this, but much better than I could.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm not as bright or smart or well read as most of you, and if you say amhartley's opening premises is untrue or breaks the rules of logic, then I’ll take your word for it.

However, as I was reading the responses… then Kili is real… then many of the gods in the Greek pantheon are real… or this god is real… and then this god is real… it occurred to me that maybe some of you have missed a crucial point there. Why is it that every human culture has “made up” the divine?

Sure, there are the standard answers, like “the growth of organized religion can be traced back to the codefication of existing societal rules as human beings transitioned from small tribes to larger communities”, “means of coercion”, yada, yada, yada. But as any first year graduate cultural anthropology student will tell these explanations are painful in their simplicity, and really miss the mark altogether. The survival of organized religion in the technological world is sufficient evidence alone, without having to go into detail about specific ancient or modern isolated cultures.

In the end, the only viable explanation is that something is wired into our pyches that propels us away from the isolation of the self, and embraces the other, and this inclination can not be satisfied unless it reaches out toward the totally Other. Only the “creation” of the divine can satisfy.

Of course, the question has to be asked. Can there be a desire without an object? Is it better for the human person to deny the object as a figment of man’s collective imagination, and live as though there were no God? Doesn’t that in the end wind up doing violence to what is naturally in man?

Pascal, another person far smarter than I, said basically the same thing as this, but much better than I could.

If you are really asking these questions, and not just being rhetorical, then I highly suggest you pick up the following book from the library, as it directly deals with those exact questions: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805074791/sr=8-1/qid=1149650782/ref=sr_1_1/102-7358777-5680914?%5Fencoding=UTF8

However, I will try to briefly address your post

But as any first year graduate cultural anthropology student will tell these explanations are painful in their simplicity, and really miss the mark altogether.

Evidence?


The survival of organized religion in the technological world is sufficient evidence alone, without having to go into detail about specific ancient or modern isolated cultures.

The survival of organized religion in the modern era is indicative of its intrinsicness to humanity, but not more than that. There are differing theories as to why it is such a part of human nature; and not all of those theories accept that it is just because there is a divine.


Can there be a desire without an object?

Yes.


Is it better for the human person to deny the object as a figment of man’s collective imagination, and live as though there were no God?

Wholly depends on how the person lives.


Doesn’t that in the end wind up doing violence to what is naturally in man?

Man has many instinctual drives; some of which are appropriate to act upon, some are not.


Pascal, another person far smarter than I, said basically the same thing as this, but much better than I could.

Pascal's wager is bunk, as it has too many assumptions built into it. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

[I less than three logic]

Why is it that every human culture has “made up” the divine?
I think there are a whole multitude of reasons to make up the divine. I doubt I could think of them all, but I think Thomas Paine’s thoughts on first cause can explain one of the reasons.
The only idea man can affix to the name of God is that of a first cause, the cause of all things. And incomprehensible and difficult as it is for a man to conceive what a first cause is, he arrives at the belief of it from the tenfold greater difficulty of disbelieving it. It is difficult beyond description to conceive that space can have no end; but it is more difficult to conceive an end. It is difficult beyond the power of man to conceive an eternal duration of what we call time; but it is more impossible to conceive a time when there shall be no time.

In like manner of reasoning, everything we behold carries in itself the internal evidence that it did not make itself Every man is an evidence to himself that he did not make himself; neither could his father make himself, nor his grandfather, nor any of his race; neither could any tree, plant, or animal make itself; and it is the conviction arising from this evidence that carries us on, as it were, by necessity to the belief of a first cause eternally existing, of a nature totally different to any material existence we know of, and by the power of which all things exist; and this first cause man calls God.
It is hard for people conceive the idea of the start of everything without the help from a divine source. This is probably one of the main reasons he considered himself a Deist, and did not proceed to Atheism. Well, perhaps that and the taboo associated with it. :)

[St.JosemariaOraProNo]

If you are really asking these questions, and not just being rhetorical...

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll return the favor: please give Blaise Pascal some attention.

The survival of organized religion in the modern era is indicative of its intrinsicness to humanity, but not more than that.

Then we agree.

There are differing theories as to why it is such a part of human nature; and not all of those theories accept that it is just because there is a divine.

I apologize. Perhaps I'm not being very clear. You probably already know that I'm Christian, and maybe that colored your perception of what I wrote.

However, I never did present an argument for the existence of God or the divine. In fact, I think I even alluded to man's need to "create" the divine.

Why?

Because man has a desire, and there must, by definition, be an object of a desire. You can not desire something that in some way does not exist. Nor can you desire something that you do not know in some way. There has to be an object for there to be a desire.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm arguing that there is a God. I'm simply arguing that if organized religion is instrinsic to man, as you, yourself, agree, then there must be an object of this instrinsic desire for the totally Other. I'm not saying that this object is not a human creation. BUT, nor am I saying that it is.

Pascal's wager is bunk, as it has too many assumptions built into it.

Nothing like that old gross oversimplification of Pascal. Why is it that that is the only thing people remember about him? His "wager" isn't even the meat of his thought regarding theism.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
Why?

Because man has a desire, and there must, by definition, be an object of a desire. You can not desire something that in some way does not exist. Nor can you desire something that you do not know in some way. There has to be an object for there to be a desire.


Now, don't get me wrong. I'm arguing that there is a God. I'm simply arguing that if organized religion is instrinsic to man, as you, yourself, agree, then there must be an object of this instrinsic desire for the totally Other. I'm not saying that this object is not a human creation. BUT, nor am I saying that it is.

Actually, no. Man is a pattern seeking animal. It's a survival trait of our species. This pattern seeking is a desire, but the goal (patterns) of said desire is so vague as to be almost nonexistent.

Our pattern seeking ability leads us to a great number of positive hits and misses (recognizing a truth as a truth, or falsehood as a falsehood), but also leads to negative hits and misses (recognizing a truth as a falsehood, or a falsehood as a truth).

In short, my argument is that it is possible we are desiring something without there being an object, and our recognition of this desire (without fully understanding it) led us to define the object based upon what our desire was.


Nothing like that old gross oversimplification of Pascal. Why is it that that is the only thing people remember about him? His "wager" isn't even the meat of his thought regarding theism.
You provided nothing to suggest you meant anything but the "wager".

[Roboramma]

Because man has a desire, and there must, by definition, be an object of a desire. You can not desire something that in some way does not exist. Why not? When I was young I wanted to meet Luke Skywalker and fly in his X-Wing. That doesn't mean that Luke Skywalker exists.

Nor can you desire something that you do not know in some way. This makes a little more sense. Nevertheless I don't see how it's completely true - when I was fifteen I wanted to have sex, even though I had no idea what it would be like.
There has to be an object for there to be a desire. You'll have to clarify that statement. I don't really know what you mean by it. If you're saying "in order to have desire you have to desire something" then I might agree (have to think about that). If you're saying that in order to have a desire the thing you desire has to exist, then that's clearly false.

I'm not saying that this object is not a human creation. BUT, nor am I saying that it is. So then what are you saying?

Nothing like that old gross oversimplification of Pascal. Why is it that that is the only thing people remember about him? His "wager" isn't even the meat of his thought regarding theism. What did Pascal say that you find interesting?
Edit: feel free to quote him.

[RandFan]

Yes, but the post by Scott Haley (and, indirectly, the one by RandFan that preceded it) to which I was replying was essentially assuming arguendo that the premise was true (something we do in logic sometimes), and I was responding in kind.

Would the same logic necessarily apply in the case of polytheistic pantheons? Those gods are balanced out by other deities with different attributes, after all. No, it would only apply to the gods that meet the criteria based on the logic in your original argument.

Your argument: Mean gods must be real because humans would only create nice gods.

My apologies to Paine but that is really stupid. It is grossly ignorant of religious history. Native Americans hung themselves from hooks in religious ceremonies, African Natives would tattoo themselves in a very painful religious ritual. Mayans would cut the hearts out of living humans for their gods. Humans have been murdering others and causing great pain and discomfort to themselves for many different and diverse spiritual and religious reasons for thousands of years. Humans have invented many nasty deities with vengeful and malicious intent. By your logic they would only do this if all of these rituals or all of these gods were more than mere superstition or mythology. That just doesn't stand to logic. And trying to "balance it out" doesn't solve the problem inherent in your logic.

[Beady]

You can not desire something that in some way does not exist. Nor can you desire something that you do not know in some way. There has to be an object for there to be a desire

I disagree. Many/most/all people are familiar with feelings of vague discontent or longing, without knowing the cause or object. I suppose you could then argue that their knowledge is subliminal but that, too, is an arguable stance.

BTW, "something that in some way does not exist"? What's the "in some way"? Either something exists, or it doesn't.

[bruto]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll return the favor: please give Blaise Pascal some attention.



Then we agree.



I apologize. Perhaps I'm not being very clear. You probably already know that I'm Christian, and maybe that colored your perception of what I wrote.

However, I never did present an argument for the existence of God or the divine. In fact, I think I even alluded to man's need to "create" the divine.

Why?

Because man has a desire, and there must, by definition, be an object of a desire. You can not desire something that in some way does not exist. Nor can you desire something that you do not know in some way. There has to be an object for there to be a desire.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm arguing that there is a God. I'm simply arguing that if organized religion is instrinsic to man, as you, yourself, agree, then there must be an object of this instrinsic desire for the totally Other. I'm not saying that this object is not a human creation. BUT, nor am I saying that it is.



Nothing like that old gross oversimplification of Pascal. Why is it that that is the only thing people remember about him? His "wager" isn't even the meat of his thought regarding theism.


There have been plenty of threads on Pascal's wager, but in short (taken by itself - other theological arguments being irrelevant to the wager as such as far as I can see), it is bunk because it assumes, a priori, that the choices are limited to no god or the Roman Catholic sect of Christianity. If, as most religions, Christian and otherwise, suggest, it would be fatal to one's soul to choose the wrong sect (and yes, I know those sects might be wrong, but the doctrines still exist, and sectarian murder is still rife in the world because of it), Pascal's wager is worthless mathematically, because it is no longer a gamble between "god and no-god" but atheism and all different religions. The choice of religion must of course now be made on the basis of other information or belief, not on the odds. It's no wager at all. If it is to be a wager, then any religious choice must be sufficient, and if that is the case, then we cannot assume, as Pascal does, that God cares much about what we believe. Once again, if we discard the content from the religions chosen, it's no wager at all, because we cannot assume that God will punish atheists any worse than he will punish polytheists or buddhists or Scientologists or even Satanists. Pascals's wager depends on there being only one clear religious choice, and on the assumption that that vengeful bastard Jehovah will send you to hell if you don't do the right rites and take the sacraments. It may be an informed choice, even a good one, but it is clearly not a meaningful wager by itself, since in order to make the choice one must clearly have accepted the Roman Catholic Church as the only valid religious choice.

I question whether "organized religion" itself is intrinsic to man. Religous impulse certainly is, and so is the tendency to organize. People are social, and the world is mysterious, complex and confusing. Religion is natural, and so is organization, but I do not see that this makes the tendency to form organized religions any more profound than the tendency to form governments or armies or families.

Of course there's always some kind of scholastic flummery to argue that we can't desire something that doesn't somehow exist, but the common sense truth of the matter is that we can and do all the time. We can desire things which are false and wrong, impossible and logically inconsistent. to say otherwise is to get in line with mystical mushheads like Iacchus (if you're new to the forum, Iacchus, now suspended, was a Swedenborgian who asserted that everything he believed, dreamed and desired was true). Large numbers of people believe in astrology and spoon bending and reincarnation, homeopathy and other woo-woo nonsense, because they desire the world to be other than it is. Though not an atheist myself, I cannot provide a good logical argument why god could not be placed in the category of "things we wish existed but don't."

[NobbyNobbs]

But the Biblical God is a holy, righteous terror, Who doesn't put up with sin or any imperfection, in you or me. That's one of the greatest proofs that humans didn't make Him up; we would have created (in Paine's words) a more "tender, sympathising, and benevolent" God.
-Andrew


Consider yourself in a world without science. There are lots of things that need explaining....lightning, earthquakes, eclipses, disease, death. What sort of god would you invent that would account for these? A cuddly one? Nope. A horrific one.

The idea that god is horrific, to me, is proof that we invented him.

A god that doesn't care one way or another what we do, a god that doesn't need us pathetic little bags of water to supplicate him....that's the sort of god I might believe exists. But that's not the sort that religion calls on us to believe in. God forbid.

[ceo_esq]

Coincidentally I've just quoted these loving, kind and heart warming words of the living God in another thread:

What do you think they mean?

[ceo_esq]

But the Old Testament god wasn't particularly concerned with being loved, was he? He was all about obedience and terror.

That's an unusual overall assessment. It seems to me that the love of the Hebrews for God (and vice-versa) is a fairly common theme of the Old Testament.

[c4ts]

That's an unusual overall assessment. It seems to me that the love of the Hebrews for God (and vice-versa) is a fairly common theme of the Old Testament.
Particularly the book of Job has God doting on one follower in particular, so obsessed with getting one man to praise him. Never mind that his wife and children die in the process, he gets new ones in the end...

[Freethinker]

That's an unusual overall assessment. It seems to me that the love of the Hebrews for God (and vice-versa) is a fairly common theme of the Old Testament.

Don't forget destruction of their enemies. Imagine yourself lost in a snowstorm, surrounded by wolves. What kind of protector would you dream up? A big, strong one who would pick you up and rescue you while slaughtering the wolves?

Snowstorm=Scary World
Wolves=Enemies
Protector=God

I want to have one mean SOB who loves me and doesn't want anything to happen to me who is ready to kick anybody's ass who messes with me. In return for this protection, I kiss his ass. In a nutshell, that is my take on the god of the Old Testament.

[rocketdodger]

The survival of organized religion in the modern era is indicative of its intrinsicness to humanity, but not more than that. There are differing theories as to why it is such a part of human nature; and not all of those theories accept that it is just because there is a divine.


So you propose that the survival of pathogens in higher life forms is indicative of their intrinsicness to those life forms?

[Dr Adequate]

In the end, the only viable explanation is that something is wired into our pyches that propels us away from the isolation of the self, and embraces the other, and this inclination can not be satisfied unless it reaches out toward the totally Other. Only the “creation” of the divine can satisfy. You forget that errors as well as truths may be innate to the human psyche.

(To take one example of something innate to the human psyche which is not good, psychologists have shown that innately human beings are very poor at judging probabilities, sometimes ridiculously bad. The fact that our nature leads us to make such mistakes doesn't mean that we should reject probability theory but that we really need to learn it.)

Now the existence of God is just one case of what we might call the Invisible Man Hypothesis. Some examples:

* 9/11 conspiracy wingnuts can't see how the Twin Towers fell as they did. Therefore, a government conspiracy arranged for them to fall that way.

* Van Daaniken type loonies can't see how primitive Egyptian technology could have produced the pyramids. Therefore, they were built by aliens.

* Enthusiasts for "cloudships" can't explain the behavior of certain clouds. Therefore, they are UFOs in disguise.

* Other people are puzzled by how it can be warm one day and cold the next. (I'm not making this up, I wish I was.) Therefore, the government is using a machine designed by Tesla to control the weather.

* You wake up in the morning with an inexplicable bruise? You were abducted by aliens.

* Can't explain why the stockmarket crashed? That would be the Elders of Zion.

* I found a good one in Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua. He couldn't understand why committees of sensible individuals could make silly decisions. So he hypothesised that every human institution had a tutulary spirit.

* Crop circles are an interesting example because they were in fact produced by intelligent forces working in secret, i.e. circle-makers. This doesn't prevent people from beliving that they are actually being secretly made by aliens.

I could go on, but you get the point. Human beings do, it seems, have an innate tendency to explain difficult questions by means of secret and invisible conscious forces with powers beyond the ordinary: moreover, although these forces are held to be conscious, their motives are usually so ill-defined that anything remarkable may be attributed to them. They move, to coin a phrase, in mysterious ways.

The examples above show that if we have an innate tendency as a species to think in this way, then this is a tendency, like our inadequate grasp of probability, which leads us to think and do some pretty silly things. Innate it may be, but it's a tendency that makes us dumb, and as such, like our problems as a species with probability theory, it seems that we should not so much glory in it as a hallmark of our humanity but rather try to correct it through education.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So you propose that the survival of pathogens in higher life forms is indicative of their intrinsicness to those life forms?

One is a behavior, the other is a seperate entity. Apples and oranges. Plus I was addressing

Sure, there are the standard answers, like “the growth of organized religion can be traced back to the codefication of existing societal rules as human beings transitioned from small tribes to larger communities”, “means of coercion”, yada, yada, yada. But as any first year graduate cultural anthropology student will tell these explanations are painful in their simplicity, and really miss the mark altogether. The survival of organized religion in the technological world is sufficient evidence alone, without having to go into detail about specific ancient or modern isolated cultures.

[Dr Adequate]

Because man has a desire, and there must, by definition, be an object of a desire. You can not desire something that in some way does not exist. Nor can you desire something that you do not know in some way. There has to be an object for there to be a desire. I think you're wrong here. People can, after all, want to see Bigfoot without there being any such thing. Or to get the government to open up Area 51 so they can see the Roswell UFO. People used to write letters to Sherlock Holmes asking for his help. (They should have prayed instead, of course.) Sherlock Holmes ought to exist. But he doesn't.

[rocketdodger]

One is a behavior, the other is a seperate entity. Apples and oranges. Plus I was addressing

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

Please list for me how religion and pathogens differ, other than the fact that one is an idea and one is a biological organism. Hint: before you do, you should google "memetics."

[Dr Adequate]

Please list for me how religion and pathogens differ, other than the fact that one is an idea and one is a biological organism. Hint: before you do, you should google "memetics." Many things are memes that are not religions. The English language, for example. Or the inverse square law, if it comes to that. There is no reason a priori why we should classify religion (or any other meme) as being like a virus rather than being like a useful, functional piece of our DNA, especially when that seems to be the very subject we're debating.

[rocketdodger]

There is no reason a priori why we should classify religion (or any other meme) as being like a virus rather than being like a useful, functional piece of our DNA, especially when that seems to be the very subject we're debating.

I agree. My argument is that based on the evidence a posteriori, the meme of religion should be classified as a highly virulent pathogen.

This evidence would be, among many other things, the fact that religion's primary method of transmission is force, coercion, and deception initiated by those that are already infected.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

Please list for me how religion and pathogens differ, other than the fact that one is an idea and one is a biological organism. Hint: before you do, you should google "memetics."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/071673561X/102-3994982-8890560?v=glance&n=283155 presents the theory that religosity and the codification of how human beings interact are byproducts of our survival traits as a species.

With your drawing of a parallel between religion and pathogens, are you suggesting that religion is external to the human species and that is your contention against my statement?

[rocketdodger]

Many things are memes that are not religions. The English language, for example. Or the inverse square law, if it comes to that. There is no reason a priori why we should classify religion (or any other meme) as being like a virus rather than being like a useful, functional piece of our DNA, especially when that seems to be the very subject we're debating.

Oh, and I simply suggested memetics because he seemed to think that the concepts of evolutionary fitness only apply to biological entities. I was not suggesting that all memes are akin to pathogens.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I agree. My argument is that based on the evidence a posteriori, the meme of religion should be classified as a highly virulent pathogen.

This evidence would be, among many other things, the fact that religion's primary method of transmission is force, coercion, and deception initiated by those that are already infected.

I don't think that is incompatible with what I stated.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... the concepts of evolutionary fitness only apply to biological entities.... Ah, sorry if I gave that impression. No, I am actually on board with the idea that evolutionary fitness applies to biology, psychology, etc I think we're on the same page, but I am just failing to communicate well today. :boxedin:

[JamesDillon]

It is hard for people conceive the idea of the start of everything without the help from a divine source. This is probably one of the main reasons he considered himself a Deist, and did not proceed to Atheism. Well, perhaps that and the taboo associated with it. :)
I suspect that the reason Paine stopped at Deism is that he was pre-Darwin, and lived in a world in which the argument from design posed a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to rational atheism. Dawkins wrote (I can't recall where) that Darwin made it possible to be a rationally justified atheist, and Dennett discusses in Darwin's Dangerous Idea why Hume, despite having thoroughly rebutted the argument from design in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ultimately accepts theism at the end of the book; to the pre-Darwinian mind, there was simply no other way of explaining the origin of biological life and consciousness.

My apologies to Paine but that is really stupid. It is grossly ignorant of religious history.... Humans have invented many nasty deities with vengeful and malicious intent. By your logic they would only do this if all of these rituals or all of these gods were more than mere superstition or mythology. That just doesn't stand to logic. And trying to "balance it out" doesn't solve the problem inherent in your logic.

Just so we're all clear, Paine didn't make any such argument; that was entirely amhartley's take on Paine's observation that the god of the Bible is a sadistic bastard.

[rocketdodger]

With your drawing of a parallel between religion and pathogens, are you suggesting that religion is external to the human species and that is your contention against my statement?

Not exactly. My contention has 2 parts.

1) Determining whether or not religion is in fact intrinsic or external to humans is impossible because very few humans are allowed to develop without religious influence of any kind. The only way to be sure would be finding isolated humans, and that is impossible because virtually none exist.

2) Whether or not religion is intrinsic to humans is a more complicated question that it first appears, because humans are always found in social groups. A more pertinent question is whether or not religion is intrinsic to social groups of sentient beings.


In general, my contention is that divinity as a concept may in fact be intrinsic to humans, but only as a mechanism to explain that which otherwise eludes us. Drawing any conclusions from this along the lines of "thus god exists" is nonsense because "that which otherwise eludes us" is completely subjective and dependent upon the person in question. And at any rate, proving such a hunch is impossible, thanks to the religions, who have virtually raped divinity so badly that it is no longer recognizable for what it really should be.

Religion, on the other hand, seems to be an external mechanism used to aid in enforcing and propagating the social hierarchy that our primate ancestors began. I see no logical connection between the concept of divinity and organized religion other than one's use of the other as pure deception.

[ceo_esq]

I think you're wrong here. People can, after all, want to see Bigfoot without there being any such thing. Or to get the government to open up Area 51 so they can see the Roswell UFO. People used to write letters to Sherlock Holmes asking for his help. (They should have prayed instead, of course.) Sherlock Holmes ought to exist. But he doesn't.

I'm not sure that's the type of fundamental human desire St.Josemaria had in mind, which I suspect is what Lewis was referring to in Mere Christianity:

Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.


A few years earlier, Lewis had toyed with this "argument from longing" in one of his private letters:

A wish may lead to false beliefs, granted. But what does the existence of the wish suggest? At one time I was much impressed by Arnold ( http://www.bartleby.com/65/ar/Arnold-M.html)'s line "Nor does the being hungry prove that we have bread." But surely tho' it doesn't prove that one particular man will get food, it does prove that there is such a thing as food!

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not sure that's the type of fundamental human desire St.Josemaria had in mind, which I suspect is what Lewis was referring to in Mere Christianity:

A few years earlier, Lewis had toyed with this "argument from longing" in one of his private letters: However, if you think about it, we imagine God as being an infinite and perfect source of things which do exist (love, mercy, justice, hope, life, et cetera) but which are in short supply. We do not want him to provide us with perfect "spoo" or eternal "fleem" or other things of which we have no actual experience.

To reuse Arnold's analogy of our appetite for food: Greek mythology includes an inexhaustible supply of food --- a "horn of plenty" or "cornucopia". The fact that men (presumably hungry men) imagined such a thing is evidence for the existence of food, yes. But it is not evidence of the existence of cornucopiae. In the same way, the fact that we can imagine (and desire) an inexhaustable supply of perfect love proves that there is love, but not necessarily that there is an inexhaustible supply of perfect love.

[bruto]

I'm not sure that's the type of fundamental human desire St.Josemaria had in mind, which I suspect is what Lewis was referring to in Mere Christianity:




A few years earlier, Lewis had toyed with this "argument from longing" in one of his private letters:

I'm not convinced the argument from longing is a good one, but let's assume that it is for the moment. You are assuming that the universal longing is for God. However, not all people long for God. If the longing for God were the thing, then it would be reasonable to wonder why not all people long for God, and why that longing results in such different beliefs, different Gods, etc. It seems just as reasonable to suggest that the inherent longing is for answers to the mysteries of existence. The only implication we can assume from this is that there esists such a thing as an answer. We are human, we are wired to seek answers and because we're often pretty smart, we often get them, but this does not then prove either that all questions must have answers, or that the answer to that particular question is divine.

[ceo_esq]

However, if you think about it, we imagine God as being an infinite and perfect source of things which do exist (love, mercy, justice, hope, life, et cetera) but which are in short supply. We do not want him to provide us with perfect "spoo" or eternal "fleem" or other things of which we have no actual experience.

To reuse Arnold's analogy of our appetite for food: Greek mythology includes an inexhaustible supply of food --- a "horn of plenty" or "cornucopia". The fact that men (presumably hungry men) imagined such a thing is evidence for the existence of food, yes. But it is not evidence of the existence of cornucopiae. In the same way, the fact that we can imagine (and desire) an inexhaustable supply of perfect love proves that there is love, but not necessarily that there is an inexhaustible supply of perfect love.

I think the desire for love, mercy, justice, etc., is perhaps distinguishable from the longing for a deity who embodies such properties infinitely.

I've now come across a somewhat interesting article (http://www.quodlibet.net/williams-aesthetic.shtml) that analyzes the "argument from longing" as an aesthetic argument. Anyway, it picks up on the Lewis quotation I'd remembered and throws some additional material into the mix:

If God exists and has designed us for relationship with Himself, as Christianity claims, one would expect people to find contentment only within such a relationship and to show signs of deprivation if such a relationship is lacking. That there is a deep need for God within the human heart was recognised by the biblical songwriter who wrote that "As a deer longs for streams of cool water, so I long for you, O God." (Psalm 42:1, G.N.B.) Christian writers through the ages have echoed this theme of longing. Augustine wrote in his Confessions that: "You made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless till they rest in you." Pascal wrote of how "There is a god-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man, and only God can fill it."

Many atheists also recognize the existence of a restless, unfulfilled desire for something more. Katharine Tait said this about her father, the famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell: "Somewhere at the back of my father's mind, at the bottom of his heart, in the depth of his soul, there was an empty space that had once been filled by God and he never found anything else to put in it." Russell himself acknowledged that: "The centre of me is always and eternally a terrible pain - a curious wild pain - a searching for something beyond what the world contains."

That this restless desire apart from God predicted by the theistic hypothesis exists, and that people who believe they have discovered relationship with God seem to have discovered the object that satiates this desire, is evidence in favor of the theistic hypothesis; empirical confirmation of Jesus' claim that: "this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." (John 17:3.) As Pascal argued: "Man tries unsuccessfully to fill this void with everything that surrounds him, seeking in absent things the help he cannot find in those that are present, but all are incapable of it. This infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite. . . object. . . God himself.”

…

As a literary scholar, Lewis picked up on the Romantic term Sehnucht to describe a family of emotional responses to the world (melancholy, wonder, yearning, etc.) which are linked by a sense of displacement or alienation from the object of desire. … This Sehnucht points [for Lewis], then, towards the existence of a supernatural happiness. Is there truly any reason to suppose that reality offers satisfaction to this desire? Being hungry doesn't prove that we will get fed. True; but such a criticism misses the point. A man's hunger does not prove that he will get any food; he might die of starvation. But surely hunger proves that a man comes from a race which needs to eat and inhabits a world where edible substances exist: "In the same way," says Lewis, "though I do not believe (I wish I did) that my desire for Paradise proves that I shall enjoy it, I think it a pretty good indication that such a thing exists and that some men will."

[Dr Adequate]

I think the desire for love, mercy, justice, etc., is perhaps distinguishable from the longing for a deity who embodies such properties infinitely. This may be true but does not affect my point. The desire for food is certainly distinguishable from the desire to own a cornucopia. Noetheless, if we ask why people used to believe in the myth of the cornucopia, the answer is not because cornucopiae exist, but because food and hunger exist.

The reason we might desire infinite justice is not a proof that this exists: because we might desire such a thing by considering the nature and paucity of the quantity of justice that we have, just as the desire for a cornucopia can be arrived at by considering the nature and paucity of the finite amount of food actually available to us.

[ceo_esq]

This may be true but does not affect my point. The desire for food is certainly distinguishable from the desire to own a cornucopia. Noetheless, if we ask why people used to believe in the myth of the cornucopia, the answer is not because cornucopiae exist, but because food and hunger exist.

I'm obviously not a proponent of the argument from longing. But let me ask - are you analogizing the need for God to the need for cornucopiae here? Because from Lewis' point of view, the need for God is closer to hunger in this analogy, not a desire for cornucopiae (which is, among other things, difficult to universalize). And actually, though I'm not too familiar with the myth of the cornucopia, are we possibly begging the question of the falsity of the argument from longing by saying that the reason why people believed in cornucopiae is not that they exist?

[ETA: By the way, I was suddenly struck by the similarity of your response to the argument of the Queen of the Underworld in Lewis' The Silver Chair, when she's trying to persuade the protagonists that Aslan is a product of their wishful thinking.]

[ETA again: What happened to St.Josemaria? He/she ought to be pursuing this, not I.]

[RandFan]

Just so we're all clear, Paine didn't make any such argument; that was entirely amhartley's take on Paine's observation that the god of the Bible is a sadistic bastard.Which also makes clear my ignorance of Paine. :)

Thanks

[Dr Adequate]

The comparison to the Queen of the Underworld is not exact. My argument is not: "God is like people only better which is something we would desire even if it didn't exist, therefore belief in God is the product of wishful thinking, therefore God does not exist," (which would involve assuming the antecedent twice in a row) but only "God is like people only better, which is something we would desire even if it didn't exist. Hence Lewis's argument fails."

[ceo_esq]

The comparison to the Queen of the Underworld is not exact. My argument is not: "God is like people only better which is something we would desire even if it didn't exist, therefore belief in God is the product of wishful thinking, therefore God does not exist," (which would involve assuming the antecedent twice in a row) but only "God is like people only better, which is something we would desire even if it didn't exist. Hence Lewis's argument fails."

I didn't mean to suggest it squared on all points with that argument, simply that it was reminiscent. (And I may have recalled that episode imperfectly across so many years.) Thanks for the clarification, however.

[c4ts]

Men may desire imaginary things, and they may desire real things. The desire itself is no indication of either one, and it is no more than an opinion. To say that if all men hold the same opinion so it must be the correct opinion, is arguing from popularity which proves nothing.

[ceo_esq]

Men may desire imaginary things, and they may desire real things. The desire itself is no indication of either one, and it is no more than an opinion. To say that if all men hold the same opinion so it must be the correct opinion, is arguing from popularity which proves nothing.

That depends. The experience of hunger, and perhaps certain other psychological drives or desires, are not exactly opinions as such, in the ordinary sense (or so it seems to me). I do kind of see Lewis' point (as paraphrased by Williams, supra) that the existence of hunger in people, by its nature, does seem to be an indication that "man comes from a race which needs to eat and inhabits a world where edible substances exist." I'm just unpersuaded the need for God or something like him can be sufficiently assimilated to the desire of a hungry person for food.

[c4ts]

That depends. The experience of hunger, and perhaps certain other psychological drives or desires, are not exactly opinions as such, in the ordinary sense (or so it seems to me). I do kind of see Lewis' point (as paraphrased by Williams, supra) that the existence of hunger in people, by its nature, does seem to be an indication that "man comes from a race which needs to eat and inhabits a world where edible substances exist." I'm just unpersuaded the need for God or something like him can be sufficiently assimilated to the desire of a hungry person for food.

But the metaphor of hunger is a distraction. Hunger tells you about a person and his needs, it doesn't reveal anything about food. There can be hunger where there is no food (and there is often hunger where there is no food). So hunger alone is not the best indication of whether or not food exists, since hunger can exist independently of food. Humans, at least given only the facts of hunger in the metaphor, could live in a world without edible substances where hunger is curbed by other means.

The fact that we eat food regularly is the proof that food exists, not the hunger, and this is missing from the metaphor. Does Lewis suggest that we physically meet god regularly and unmistakably, as we do when we experience food? (If so, then the entire question of existence is a waste of intellect, since the answer is already known to us. And if Lewis does not suggest that, why not, if the metaphor does?)

If you are to equate hunger with Lewis's supposed need, it's a statement about people, not gods. In deducing the existence of god beings from human behavior, there is a substantial amount of reasoning that Lewis witholds from us.

[ceo_esq]

But the metaphor of hunger is a distraction. Hunger tells you about a person and his needs, it doesn't reveal anything about food. There can be hunger where there is no food (and there is often hunger where there is no food).

There is food, in the sense that such a thing as food exists, which is what Lewis means. We do not live in a universe in which food does not exist, so we have no direct experience of the possibility of hunger - as the phenomenon we know - existing in such a world as that. And I think it must be conceded that there is something at least vaguely counterintuitive about that possibility.


So hunger alone is not the best indication of whether or not food exists, since hunger can exist independently of food.

I don't think even Lewis would say that hunger alone is the best indication of whether or not food exists, simply that the existence of hunger is one thing that points to the existence of food. Human beings have virtually universal experience with the direct sensory perception of food; that is probably the best indication of whether or not food exists.


Humans, at least given only the facts of hunger in the metaphor, could live in a world without edible substances where hunger is curbed by other means.

By reference to a normal understanding of concepts like hunger and nutrition, the plausibility of humans developing in such a world is perhaps questionable. What sort of scenario did you have in mind?


The fact that we eat food regularly is the proof that food exists, not the hunger, and this is missing from the metaphor.

I mentioned this just above - but Lewis was not suggesting the contrary, his argument does not rely on this, it is a fairly obvious observation, and accordingly I'm not sure I would ascribe any significance to its omission.


Does Lewis suggest that we physically meet god regularly and unmistakably, as we do when we experience food? (If so, then the entire question of existence is a waste of intellect, since the answer is already known to us. And if Lewis does not suggest that, why not, if the metaphor does?)

You read the same passages as I. I don't believe he is suggesting that (at least the physicality part). And his analogy (I'm not sure I'd call this a metaphor) is not focusing on the accidental properties of food or hunger (food is physical, and we do in fact encounter it unmistakeably) but on the correspondence between the need and the needed thing.


If you are to equate hunger with Lewis's supposed need, it's a statement about people, not gods.

I'm not equating it; Lewis is (roughly speaking). And of course it is naturally a statement about people (just like statements about hunger are), but which, in his view, points toward something external to people (similar to the way hunger does).

[JamesDillon]

But the metaphor of hunger is a distraction. Hunger tells you about a person and his needs, it doesn't reveal anything about food. There can be hunger where there is no food (and there is often hunger where there is no food). So hunger alone is not the best indication of whether or not food exists, since hunger can exist independently of food. Humans, at least given only the facts of hunger in the metaphor, could live in a world without edible substances where hunger is curbed by other means.

I think that sort of misses the argument; the point I think Lewis was trying to make is similar to Popper's point that each organism is a theory of reality: the existence of the sensation of hunger, and the biological means of consuming and digesting food, assumes the existence of food (at least in the evolutionary environment). As others have said, though, I don't think this establishes the reality of God as Lewis thought it did, since God is really just a personification of all the real things that we view as desirable. A fair rebuttal to Lewis might be that yes, the existence of hunger suggests the existence of food, but does not entail the literal existence of the Ideal Platonic Pizza.

[c4ts]

There is food, in the sense that such a thing as food exists, which is what Lewis means. We do not live in a universe in which food does not exist, so we have no direct experience of the possibility of hunger - as the phenomenon we know - existing in such a world as that. And I think it must be conceded that there is something at least vaguely counterintuitive about that possibility.
Perhaps I am examining the connection too closely, isolating it to the point where it has lost meaning. I may have misunderstood the metaphor, thinking it meant that we could somehow know food through hunger.

I don't think even Lewis would say that hunger alone is the best indication of whether or not food exists, simply that the existence of hunger is one thing that points to the existence of food. Human beings have virtually universal experience with the direct sensory perception of food; that is probably the best indication of whether or not food exists.

By reference to a normal understanding of concepts like hunger and nutrition, the plausibility of humans developing in such a world is perhaps questionable. What sort of scenario did you have in mind?
A scenario where there is no more food and humanity starves to death will do. Or a world of anorexics on diet pills. Again, I think I misunderstood the metaphor.

[ceo_esq]

As others have said, though, I don't think this establishes the reality of God as Lewis thought it did, since God is really just a personification of all the real things that we view as desirable.

I don't think it works either, but to say that God is "really just a personification of all the real things that we view as desirable" probably assumes facts not in evidence.


A fair rebuttal to Lewis might be that yes, the existence of hunger suggests the existence of food, but does not entail the literal existence of the Ideal Platonic Pizza.

I'd speculate that Lewis' reply might be that hunger is a need/desire for food, not a need/desire for the Ideal Platonic Pizza - so hunger points only to the reality that we are creatures designed (not talking ID here, of course) to be nourished by food and that there is such a thing as food; we would not expect it to point to the reality of the Ideal Platonic Pizza.

(Although if Plato was right, perhaps the existence of any pizza does indicate that there is an Ideal Platonic Pizza - but it exists as an abstraction, whereas Lewis is presumably talking about a God who is uniquely instantiated in a different way than a Platonic ideal. That's an entirely separate discussion, however.)

Similarly, Sehnucht (which I use - or perhaps misuse - loosely to describe what Lewis, Pascal, et al. were talking about) is a need for God specifically, not a need for (or derivation of a need for) of "real things that we view as desirable". Therefore (as I understand the argument), Sehnucht points to the reality that we are creatures designed to have a relationship with God and that there is such a thing as God; it says nothing about the existence of things which may be desirable but which are nonetheless not God.

[ceo_esq]

A scenario where there is no more food and humanity starves to death will do. Or a world of anorexics on diet pills. Again, I think I misunderstood the metaphor.

In those scenarios, there's no food available, true - still, would either scenario arise if there had never been any such thing as food in the universe?

[ImaginalDisc]

In those scenarios, there's no food available, true - still, would either scenario arise if there had never been any such thing as food in the universe?
Any living thing would require a source of energy.

[ceo_esq]

I think perhaps the weakest part of the argument, frankly, involves persuading us that there is a deep human need for God in the way Lewis and Pascal say there is. Still, I concede that there's a better case to be made that such a need exists than that there exists a deep human need for many other (possibly/probably/certainly) non-existent things (UFOs, Sherlock Holmes, etc.).

[ceo_esq]

Any living thing would require a source of energy.

The need of living things for energy is basically assimilable (for Lewis' purposes) to the specific need of human beings for nutrition, though. He'd say that we can infer from that need that there is such a thing as energy, even if this or that individual living thing isn't actually going to get the energy it's feeling the need for.

[I less than three logic]

Oh, you’re all wrong. Hunger is evidence of evolution. A creature with a warning signal that says it needs to eat would have an advantage over another without such a warning that forgot to eat and starved to death. :D

[ceo_esq]

Oh, you’re all wrong. Hunger is evidence of evolution. A creature with a warning signal that says it needs to eat would have an advantage over another without such a warning that forgot to eat and starved to death. :D

I'm waiting next for someone to interpret the argument as "Food proves that God exists!" Oh well!

:D

[Elind]

What logic? It is an argument based on a false premise.

If man crated God, God would be nice.
God isn’t nice.
Therefore, man did not crate God.

The first premise is incorrect. There is no reason to believe that a God crated by man would be nice. In fact, it is quite the contrary. A God designed to invoke fear would be far more useful in instilling obedience than a God that is "tender, sympathizing, and benevolent".

Actually, I have always been struck by just how utterly human "God" was, which is why I concluded a long time ago that it had to be invented by people. Mostly people with little imagination.

[ceo_esq]

Actually, I have always been struck by just how utterly human "God" was, which is why I concluded a long time ago that it had to be invented by people.

If you were deciding on the basis of this perceived similarity of God to human beings, you could have concluded with equal validity that human beings must have been invented by God.

[bruto]

If you were deciding on the basis of this perceived similarity of God to human beings, you could have concluded with equal validity that human beings must have been invented by God.

The thing that strikes me most about most versions of God is not that he resembles human beings, but that he resembles what human beings would be if they could be God: a petulant passive-aggressive control freak with superpowers. Any god worth his salt should be so truly "out of this world" as to be unimaginable.

[Elind]

If you were deciding on the basis of this perceived similarity of God to human beings, you could have concluded with equal validity that human beings must have been invented by God.

As "in his image" I presume you mean?

I am stating this opinion as a subjective observation.

A god that has all the human emotions and failings, except for the power that we have probably all dreamt of having at some time or other. That is a god? Not. It's just a projection of ourselves; some of us anyway.

Sorry if I'm so simple in my logic.

[Elind]

The thing that strikes me most about most versions of God is not that he resembles human beings, but that he resembles what human beings would be if they could be God: a petulant passive-aggressive control freak with superpowers. Any god worth his salt should be so truly "out of this world" as to be unimaginable.

Ditto; except that it's not for us to say what a god should be, is it? Try that too hard and before you know it you'll have to believe in one.;)