PyotrVerkhovensky
No bio...
User ID: 2154
PyotrVerkhovensky
2d ago
And this immediately fails the "and why couldn't that apply to anything else like the universe itself?" question.
I'm not understanding the thrust of your question. Are you suggesting the material world (or something in the material world) is eternal?
Every single thing is answered equally by "the Matrix creators want to fuck with us".
While I don't believe we are in a simulated universe, in this scenario the simulation's programmer would be, to us, indistinguishable from God.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3d ago
I wrote this three years ago, as a non-rigorous quasi-tongue-in-cheek argument for why I'm not an atheist. The TL;DR: the world I see is one that I would expect to see if God exists, which I consider (weak) Bayesian evidence for God.
Argument 1: Societal evolution and a stabilizing force
As societies evolve they adopt behaviors that benefit the society. Ideas that are destructive are either discarded or are adopted but with subsequent decline in that society, leading to internal or external takeover. Societal structures and frameworks arise from these behaviors and are likewise subject to the survivorship test. Every continent evolved a formal religious structure to promote societal cohesion and to provide society with an ethical or moral framework. The ubiquity of religion suggests that the instinct to religion is strongly embedded within the human psyche, and to remove the formality of religion is not to remove the instinct for religion. In the mid 1800s, Darwin, Marx, and Kierkegaard identified scientific, societal, and mental frameworks that removed the need for a God. For the first time atheism had rigorous answers to questions of existence, societal cohesion, and spirituality. Nietzsche summarized this nicely: "God is dead". But the psychological need for religion did not go away: it was merely replaced by classism, nationalism, communism, fascism, humanism, and many other "ism"s that were either spiritually unfulfilling for the adherents or physically destructive to both adherents and non-adherents. The brain is a physical part of the body and can evolve like any other physical part of the body. Attempting to remove a deeply embedded religious instinct is like trying to remove a hand: both the hand and the instinct evolved for a purpose.
Digression 1: definition of Religion 1
What is religion? It is a group of people gripped with singular purpose and convinced of their moral superiority. This definition is also the definition of a mob. In the Christian liturgical tradition, on Palm Sunday (the Sunday before Easter) the congregation participates in the reading of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem and shouts "Hosanna!" The very next week the crowds in Jerusalem shouted "Crucify!" and in the reading the congregation participates in this cry as well; reminding the congregation that it was our sin that crucified Jesus. But it does two other things as well: it forces us to look inwardly and realize that we ourselves are capable of great atrocities. Probabilistically we would have been in the mob crucifying Jesus, convinced of our moral superiority. How easy and almost pleasant it is for us to read Anne Frank and identify with her fear and suffering. But if we were in Germany at the time it is far more likely that we would have been her tormentors. The second thing shouting "Crucify" does is lets us glimpse the power of a mob in a setting in which no mob can actually form, and is thus an annual warning of the danger and power of untethered collective moral action.
Organized religion is a countervailing force to the mob. It provides a structure and an outlet to the "religious instinct" without it devolving into mob brutality.
Conclusion to argument 1:
The above argument demonstrates the utility of organized religion but says nothing about the truth of organized religion. Certainly not all religions can all be true, since they mutually contradict. Can and should a society be built on a lie? Plato's Republic answers affirmatively, and philosophers have debated this ever since. I personally hold truth as a fundamental requirement for a "good" society; societal structures can only be as sound as its foundations. Thus argument 1 does not hold much weight for me. However, if the thrust of this argument is correct, the onus is on atheists to create a deep, meaningful, and sustainable philosophy that can replace organized religion.
Argument 2: The problem of evil and suffering
Few people would argue that suffering and evil exists in the world. If there is no God, then there is no basis or criteria for categorizing anything as good or bad. Our (almost universal) acknowledgement of injustice and suffering must then be an evolved mental condition which is either to be discarded (along with religion as a yoke of the past) or to be irrationally embraced (in which case why not also irrationally embrace religion!). As most people, including atheists, do believe in concepts such as suffering and injustice, they implicitly behave as if God exists. And thank God that they do! Despite the perversion of our mental and physical world as a result of humanity's fall/sin God's common grace has put a restraint on our depravity.
Discussion 2: definition of Religion 2
If atheism is the null hypothesis, then there is not enough evidence to reject the null. However, the above argument points to inconsistencies in atheist's behavior that would be accounted for if God exists. Likewise, if theism is the null hypothesis, there is not enough evidence to reject the null.
Every logical statement begins with a set of a-priori assumptions or axioms. Where do these axioms come from? Are they truly self-evident or is there an element of the arbitrary or even mystic about these axioms? Described in this manner, the set of axioms or principals by which we structure our reality can be considered, in some sense, a religious dogma. Religion, in this light, is the foundation on which every scientific, social, and physical structure is derived.
While this is an interesting thought experiment it is not all that convincing for my larger argument. There is no line of argument that goes from "postulates are religious" to "religion X is correct".
Conclusion to argument 2:
If I posit the existence of a just and moral God (and indeed, God would define justice and morality), and if I additionally posit that mankind is made in God's image, then I would predict that even in a fallen state that mankind would exhibit tendencies to morality and justice; albeit tainted and obscured by our separation from God. Indeed this is exactly what we see.
On the other hand, if there is no God I would predict that while there are certain evolved cooperative tendencies, that these evolved tendencies would be no stronger than that of "traditional" religion and could be just as easily cast aside. However, we do not see this.
In my experience, the atheistic approach to ethics, morality, and justice feel like a "turtles all the way down" argument. That said, I do acknowledge that just because a position is poorly defended does not make that position incorrect.
Argument 3: reductio ad absurdum
If I were an atheist, I would likely believe that we are living in a simulation. I believe that we ourselves may be capable (given another few hundred years) of creating an advanced simulation that could closely mirror our own; if we are capable what are the odds that we aren’t already in a simulation. There would be only one “reality” but millions of simulations. And that is only assuming that humans are all there are: it could easily be that just as our current video games have characters that are mere shadows of their human programmers, that we are mere shadows of a higher race that has created the simulation.
Someone (a programmer?) has created the simulation. The programmer has created the universe from nothing. The programmer has defined the physical rules and constraints of the simulation. In a very real sense, this programmer is god to the simulated universe. The programmer would want to track progress of the simulation by having the simulated “agents” communicate back. In our simulation we call this “prayer”. If the programmer reads the logs and sees that the simulation is giving some feedback, the programmer could intervene in the simulation to correct some of the parameters. It is also very possible that the programmer didn’t just set physical constraints but also gave instructions for how agents should engage with each other (religion). The programmer may also have added random amounts of “aberrant” behavior in each agent (sin). The aberrant behavior caused divergence from the original set of instructions and led to multiple religions.
Thus if I were an atheist, I would be forced to acknowledge the high likelihood of a god existing. I would need to divine the will of the programmer and would be forced to carefully assess the major religions for glimpses into the original instructions. In short, I would be very religious.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3d ago
WandererintheWilderness hit the last one well, so I'll hit the first one.
God isn't material in the way that the cosmos is material. There is a creator, and there is creation. God didn't come from nothing, he was everything. We, as the creation, are finite and restricted by the constraints that God put into the created cosmos. God has no such constraints.
PyotrVerkhovensky
3d ago
Yup. Most Christians (myself included!) are "functional atheists". The current milieu is one of agnosticism rather than spiritualism, and it is easy for professing Christians to fall into that cultural rut. Of course, most atheists in 1600-1700s Europe were "functional Christians" when the surrounding culture was "Christian".
I do disagree with your claim that Christians should be doing every action possible to save themselves from Hell. Reformed/Protestant Christianity says that outside the work of the Holy Spirit even our good deeds contribute to our damnation (they are done out of alignment with God's desire). It is only through Christ's atoning work that we can be reconciled to God ("made alive in him"). Salvation comes from acceptance of this reality (or predestined selection for this reality, if you are TULIP inclined), not from any work/action that we can do.
PyotrVerkhovensky
5d ago
"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit"
To which I would retort, "thank goodness we have the expectation of divine rewards!". I'd much rather live in a world where extrinsic pressure constrains intrinsic depravity, especially if that extrinsic pressure comes "for free" (vs, eg, a heavy police state).
The infernalist position tends to correlate with extremely dogmatic, rigorist, and frankly spiteful believers who are often extremely difficult to have open and productive conversations with.
I resemble that remark!
Universalist: Holds that all will ultimately be saved
Infernalist: Holds that some face eternal punishment from God
I think defining the frame in this way is too constraining. Will there be universal reconciliation (that is, every soul reconciled with his Creator)? Unlikely: only those who come to faith and repentance through Jesus will be reconciled to the triune God. Will those not reconciled be faced with eternal torment? The Bible doesn't definitively state that either. Certain particularly evil creatures are destined for the lake of fire, but it is possible that the vast majority of humans who reject Christ will simply be eternally separated from their Creator (which would certainly be a regretful and sorrowful condition, one that might be characterized as an outer darkness with weeping and gnashing of teeth).
While I don't see much evidence for the Universalist position in the Bible(1), that doesn't mean that I don't hope for it. My church regularly prays for "the salvation of all" while believing in limited salvation (and many believing in limited atonement).
I’ll also admit up front that even before I did this research, moral intuition insisted that eternal hell is not a true teaching. I can’t conceive of a good and loving God who creates a universe in which legions and legions of His creations, made in His image, are tortured brutally for all eternity. It simply makes no sense whatsoever.
One of Man's most pernicious and perpetual tendencies it to make God in our own image. When severe corporeal punishment was synonymous with justice, God's judgment was emphasized. Now that complacency and comfort are idolized, God's love and forgiveness is emphasized. Christians I otherwise respect, including C.S. Lewis and Bishop Barron, fall into this trap. Modern man is in love with his own mind(2) and thinks that God can be constrained or limited by our own (created!) minds, and fits him neatly into a box of our own making.
Eternity, forever, infinite, etc. are complicated concepts, and it makes sense as to why people wouldn’t really grok it or be able to reason about it well.
I don't think anyone has a definitive answer to what the afterlife or the new heavens and the new earth will be like. The Bible gives us glimpses, as if seen through a glass darkly, but I don't think it is for any human this side of eternity to have a clear frame (or, in our finitude, to even partially grasp) what that future may be like. Scripture is inspired and God-breathed, but God chose to impart only a partial peek into the eternal mysteries through Scripture. What I do know is that God is good (and would be so even/especially if non-believers are eternally tormented).
(1) Even John, the apostle most given to poetic imagery and speaks the most of love, has the most vivid descriptions of the punishment and doom waiting those who resist God.
(2) And, gnostically, hates his own body.
God is outside time. Time itself is created.
As for why he created, here is one of the first results in a Google search: https://ses.edu/why-did-god-create-anything/, which is a simplistic but cogent summary of the Christian perspective.
More options
Context Copy link