My current theory (extremely rough) would propose that for believers, “god” represents “that which is perfect” or a moral watchdog of sorts (again, rough… just play along if possible).
I think people oversetimate the importance of believing or not believing in God. I think you hit on some of the moving pieces of how believers might not be so different from non-believers. Whether you pray, or meditate, try to follow a benevelent god’s will, or try to opimize the good you can do with your life (as there is much discussion of doing in this rationalist lesswrong site), that final it of metaphysics is just a detail in a large picture of the world.
Where a believe in god seems to get people in more trouble is when that belief
1) gets conflated with a believe in some set of sacred texts, like the bible or the doctrines of the Roman church
2) causes us to yield to human authorities who have somehow convinced us they speak for god, again as with catholics although they are far from the worst example in modern times.
Of course even here on this rationalist blog, we recommend people read the sequences, which are largely written by one guy who is a local favorite interpreter of the world. The fact that we find great value in Eliezer and have, effectively, faith in his interpretation of the universe, might give us pause before damning the regligious who have also found their gurus, their apostles, their rabbis, and their saints to be well worth listening to. Finding someone brilliant and paying attention to them is a feature, not a bug, and it was a feature and not a bug even when that Brilliant man was St. Thomas Augustus or Jesus of Nazareth.
The one thing I think we do better here than any religion is to keep the open mind, that any question which is settled is only a little settled, for convenience of discussion, and is not so settled that we would ban or declare sinful any questioning of it.
But in terms of motivating positive change, that is a big theme here. You seem to have significant experience with that in your life, and it is wonderful to hear your take on these things.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. From a pragmatic sense, you may be right—whether striving for rationally decided goals or to please a cosmic being, one may improve one’s self. On the theoretical level, however, I find it a barrier when talking to religious (now that I doubt) since we obviously attribute different causation to events. On that level, I wonder if it’s healthy to think that an immaterial being inspired you to think thought x, provided you with a much needed pay increase, healed your flu earlier than you expected, or caused a healing in a strained relationship.
On those levels, I think there is a big difference. I do still think you made a valid point. Without explicitly asking one to provide the source of one’s “goodness” or success… individuals are probably indistinguishable to some degree if only studying actions, what they appear to value, etc.
Interesting point about Eliezer. I agree to some degree, though I’ve noticed a decent amount of negative feedback provided to him on various posts. I can admit a halo effect on my own part when reading him… but part of that is simply due to the fact that I really do like his writing (both content and style).
The one thing I think we do better here than any religion is to keep the open mind, that any question which is settled is only a little settled, for convenience of discussion, and is not so settled that we would ban or declare sinful any questioning of it.
I really liked that and agree that this is a large differentiating factor. Religions do not seem to allow for updating given new evidence or the possibility of fallibility (at least on some issues). I desire certainty but am trying to improve my ability to tolerate ambiguity.
I think people oversetimate the importance of believing or not believing in God. I think you hit on some of the moving pieces of how believers might not be so different from non-believers. Whether you pray, or meditate, try to follow a benevelent god’s will, or try to opimize the good you can do with your life (as there is much discussion of doing in this rationalist lesswrong site), that final it of metaphysics is just a detail in a large picture of the world.
Where a believe in god seems to get people in more trouble is when that belief 1) gets conflated with a believe in some set of sacred texts, like the bible or the doctrines of the Roman church 2) causes us to yield to human authorities who have somehow convinced us they speak for god, again as with catholics although they are far from the worst example in modern times.
Of course even here on this rationalist blog, we recommend people read the sequences, which are largely written by one guy who is a local favorite interpreter of the world. The fact that we find great value in Eliezer and have, effectively, faith in his interpretation of the universe, might give us pause before damning the regligious who have also found their gurus, their apostles, their rabbis, and their saints to be well worth listening to. Finding someone brilliant and paying attention to them is a feature, not a bug, and it was a feature and not a bug even when that Brilliant man was St. Thomas Augustus or Jesus of Nazareth.
The one thing I think we do better here than any religion is to keep the open mind, that any question which is settled is only a little settled, for convenience of discussion, and is not so settled that we would ban or declare sinful any questioning of it.
But in terms of motivating positive change, that is a big theme here. You seem to have significant experience with that in your life, and it is wonderful to hear your take on these things.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. From a pragmatic sense, you may be right—whether striving for rationally decided goals or to please a cosmic being, one may improve one’s self. On the theoretical level, however, I find it a barrier when talking to religious (now that I doubt) since we obviously attribute different causation to events. On that level, I wonder if it’s healthy to think that an immaterial being inspired you to think thought x, provided you with a much needed pay increase, healed your flu earlier than you expected, or caused a healing in a strained relationship.
On those levels, I think there is a big difference. I do still think you made a valid point. Without explicitly asking one to provide the source of one’s “goodness” or success… individuals are probably indistinguishable to some degree if only studying actions, what they appear to value, etc.
Interesting point about Eliezer. I agree to some degree, though I’ve noticed a decent amount of negative feedback provided to him on various posts. I can admit a halo effect on my own part when reading him… but part of that is simply due to the fact that I really do like his writing (both content and style).
I really liked that and agree that this is a large differentiating factor. Religions do not seem to allow for updating given new evidence or the possibility of fallibility (at least on some issues). I desire certainty but am trying to improve my ability to tolerate ambiguity.
Thanks for the closing compliments.