site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3744 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for September 13, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Model the Christian God as a superintelligence, and the physical universe as a simulation. Then drop the usual model that any reality below the observable one should be assumed to work the way the observable one works. Consider that, if there were a deeper substrate reality under this one, you know nothing about how that reality operates at all, and none of our assumptions about the function of the universe necessarily obtain.

If our assumptions based on the observable reality don't work for higher realities, then that should signal we can't derive how/if God works from what we see in our world. No matter how much evidence there is in favor of Christianity, it provides no truth value.

If our assumptions based on the observable reality don't work for higher realities, then that should signal we can't derive how/if God works from what we see in our world.

Say rather, you can't derive the mechanics of higher realities from observation of lower ones, and this is a point that most people theorizing about stacked realities appear to miss.

But God is not a mechanism. If a willful intelligence in a higher reality wants to talk to you, it can. If it makes claims about your reality, you can compare those to what you observe of your reality. If it tells you things about the higher reality, you can choose to believe it or not, and the perceived accuracy of its statements about the reality you are in can lend some degree of evidence for trust to operate.

In any case, what is "truth value"?

If a willful intelligence from a higher reality actually talked to me, as you're correct to point out it could if it wanted, my questions towards Christians and interrogations of the truthfulness of their faith would be much fewer.

(Allegedly divinely-inspired words of mortal men, "signs", feelings and vibes are no proper replacement for a conversation in my book. If it wanted to talk to me, it could talk to me.)

Are you familiar with the atheist arguments that God's relationship to us could not possibly be loving, because it's based on coercion through threats and bribes? In my view, there's a pretty solid argument that it has to be this way for our choice to be freely made.

Interrogation of truthfulness is a good thing; my main objection is that most people I see attempting it seem to me to be doing it poorly: strict Materialists incapable of recognizing breaks in Materialism, for example.

You could argue that any relationship built on communication with a higher entity would necessarily be one built on coercion, sure. But without communication there is no relationship. When one can't be sure if he's speaking with God or with the echoes of his own mind refracted through religious culture, where does freely made choice even come into it?

When one can't be sure if he's speaking with God or with the echoes of his own mind refracted through religious culture, where does freely made choice even come into it?

Why do you need to be sure? Most (all?) major and highly consequential decisions you make in your life, you have to make without being "sure". Why should this one be different? You can, if you choose, believe in God. You can, if you choose, proceed under the axiom that he has communicated, and even that he continues to communicate. Many people do this, and many of those who do report good results. You can do likewise or not as you prefer.

You can argue that things ought to work a certain way or not at all, but this isn't generally how the world works in the cases where we can test it, and if others don't agree with your logic, why be confident that the way you think it ought to be is basic reality, and not your own biases and models echoing back to you?

Being unsure about some aspects of our reality and being unsure about God are very different kinds of unsure, as you've highlighted with your model of layered realities.

Is this supposed to make him more or less credulous of Christianity?

More, I think. Have you seen a "new atheism" analogue for Simulation theory, Singularitarianism or the Doomish? I observe that a lot of the objections to theoretical violations of Materialism do not appear to be principled. There's a pretty noticeable gap between "do I have to believe this" and "do I have to not believe this", and a lot of human thought observably lives in that gap.

There’s no shortage of New Atheist styled critiques of everything from AI millenarianism to Yudkowsky’s lifestyle choices. You can find them here or in the NYT.

Simulation theory is bizarre and counterintuitive and not, I think, all that widespread. SBF tried to cite it and people (correctly) went, no, you’ve still got to give the money back. Drawing an analogy with Christianity isn’t exactly flattering.

Simulation theory is bizarre and counterintuitive

Is it? How so?

Well, first you’ve got to consider the possibility. Our computer-literate, sci-fi-reading crowd probably has an easier time with that than the average Boomer.
Then you have to distrust all your senses, something which has been a sticking point since at least Descartes.
And you’ve also got to accept that you aren’t special.

Not that any of these make it impossible, but Christianity starts to look like an easier sell.

Well, first you’ve got to consider the possibility. Our computer-literate, sci-fi-reading crowd probably has an easier time with that than the average Boomer.

Granted, true. For me simulation theory is intuitively convincing. But then I grew up with The Matrix and video games.

Then you have to distrust all your senses, something which has been a sticking point since at least Descartes.

Allow me to quote Conan:

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

Point being, no, you don't have to distrust them at all. We and our senses are made of the same stuff as the world around us after all, thanks materialism.

And you’ve also got to accept that you aren’t special.

That's probably the hardest sell, yeah.

Simulation theory is bizarre and counterintuitive and not, I think, all that widespread.

If this were a conversation in the general population, I'd agree. Maybe the rationalist stock has diluted somewhat here as well, but I've argued some of the points straight from the Sequences in the past. I maintain that the intellectual history of Rationalism shows that Materialism can break down and people mostly don't notice, much less ask "People just pretend to believe this, right?".

I…sure, I guess.

That’s not a particularly compelling argument for adopting another dualist belief, let alone a specific one.

I'm not aiming to compel adoption, only to provide an intuition pump for something the OP finds inconceivable, for whom they claim to be unable to generate a theory of mind.

That's all fine at first, but doesn't it collapse into "Nothing is comprehensible, so believe whatever you will."?

I can take the universe as a senseless or even contradictory accident, or I can take it as the deliberate creation of some higher order, fine. But making from that the leap to the benevolent God who cares about each of individually, to an afterlife, to Jesus the Son of God, or any other specifica of any given faith, I can not.

Uncharitably it all seems like wishful thinking. The desire for there to be an actual purpose and place for us, and not just brief and pointless struggle against inevitable obliteration. I get that desire, and how it could capture the mind and make it believe. I get that it's probably healthy and prosocial. But I can't quite get myself to think it true.

What I keep circling back to is this - If there were a God who cared about each of us indivdually, who speaks to us, he'd do so unmistakeably, impossible to overlook or misunderstand. Not through vague signs, interpretations, exegeses, the words of supposed son and and prophets handed down through two millenia of misrepresentation, mistranslation and lost context.

It all seems too flimsy and accidental, too much held together by the transparent desire for God to be so. So maybe there is a superintelligence that spawned a simulation. But I don't hear it talking to me in any language I can understand.

That's all fine at first, but doesn't it collapse into "Nothing is comprehensible, so believe whatever you will."?

I am pretty sure that all humans do in fact believe whatever they will. That is, Belief formation is unavoidably a product of acts of the will, of choices made.

I used to think that beliefs were formed at least somewhat deterministically: you accumulate evidence, and the weight of the evidence eventually forces your mind down a channel. Then I spent a couple decades arguing logically with people, and realized that humans do not actually work this way.

Near as I can tell, there are three ways to form a belief:

  • You can accept (or reject) a belief proposed to you by others uncritically. This is a willful choice.
  • You can examine the proposed belief based on evidence. "Evidence" is an infinite class, and not one of the smaller infinities either, so it has to be pruned to a vanishing fraction. This pruning is a choice. Then it has to be weighed, and the metrics of the weighing are a choice. Then you can either draw a conclusion or go looking for more evidence, and this is also a choice.
  • If you want something deeper, you can use Axioms. Axioms have a shape, and some sets of evidence fit within them, and others don't, so this provides a more rigorous way of selecting and pruning evidence. But there are infinite axioms, and while you can have interplay between evidence and axioms, you still have to choose both your axioms and the evidence to test them against, making it, again, a willful choice.

People speak of motivated reason. But we reason for reasons, to accomplish some goal, and so it seems to me that all reason is motivated. This does not mean that reason is useless, only that its usefulness has an observable upper limit. It seems to me that those aware of this are better able to operate within those limits than those who believe their reasoning is not motivated, that their beliefs are not choices but rather deterministic machinery. One of the best ways to lose the ability to make good choices is to cement the belief that you aren't making choices at all, but are only a set of gears grinding out the mechanistic results of cause and effect.

But making from that the leap to the benevolent God who cares about each of individually, to an afterlife, to Jesus the Son of God, or any other specifica of any given faith, I can not.

Are you looking at this as a set of facts that compel belief mechanistically, or as an option that can be chosen? If the former, then I'm confident you will never find it, since it doesn't exist for this or any other belief. If the latter, the furthest I'd say is that it is clearly possible since I've done it myself, but whether it seems like a good idea to you is a very different question and one I obviously cannot answer.

What I keep circling back to is this - If there were a God who cared about each of us individually, who speaks to us, he'd do so unmistakably, impossible to overlook or misunderstand.

My theory is that compelling belief would violate peoples' ability to choose to love or not love him freely. I do not expect this theory to be compelling to others, though.

Not through vague signs, interpretations, exegeses, the words of supposed son and and prophets handed down through two millenia of misrepresentation, mistranslation and lost context.

I don't think the texts have actually been misrepresented, mistranslated, or had their context lost. I would rather not sidetrack into a tangential issue, but the short of it is that, from what I've observed, the evidentiary basis for this sort of argument was generated by the same intellectual cultures that gave us the Sokal hoaxes, Professor Arday, and all the other fruits of the Academy, and by similar methods.

It all seems too flimsy and accidental, too much held together by the transparent desire for God to be so.

I believe in God because I want to believe in God, straight up. When I didn't want to believe in God, I didn't believe in him. Belief in God is an Axiom, and axioms are chosen, not compelled. I appreciate that there's a ton of cultural baggage and associations that say it isn't supposed to work this way, but in perfect honesty, I think it's the cultural baggage and associations that are wrong. I've had versions of this conversation a number of times here, and I always emphasize the same point: I am not under the impression that I am going to convert my opposites to Christianity, but I really would like to get people to take a serious look at how beliefs are formed in the general case, both because I find the question fascinating, and because I think it provides significant insight into a lot of otherwise-mysterious aspects of human behavior.

Are you looking at this as a set of facts that compel belief mechanistically, or as an option that can be chosen? If the former, then I'm confident you will never find it, since it doesn't exist for this or any other belief.

This reminds me of Claude Shannon’s information theory. The idea is about sending a message. Before Shannon, you might think of sending a message as mere translation: you encode a message into a medium and send it, then the receiver receives it through that medium and reconstructs it. However, Shannon flips the perspective. Instead of viewing it from the sender’s perspective, he views it from the receiver’s perspective. If you already know the message, why do you even need to receive it? The receiver has to guess what the message is.

And guessing is different from translation. Translation can be done mechanistically: you already know the thing and simply replace one representation with another. Guessing begins with not knowing. There are multiple possibilities, and one of them has to be selected.

Translation naturally gives rise to an impression of objectivity and completeness. There is a singular truth, buried in the world itself, waiting to be excavated and laid bare for others to admire. The worldview of God.

From a human perspective, knowledge seems closer to guessing. Of course, “guessing” here does not mean choosing randomly. I do not quite know a better word for it, and perhaps I do not fully grasp the idea myself yet. My impression is that it makes more sense to see knowledge as both the question and the answer, not just the answer.

I will just add that a hugely underrated aspect of belief formation is your friend group and social circle. (Thankfully a professor of mine mentioned this to me relatively early in my life, and I have been blessed in some other respects as regards my career and geographic placement).

Who you are around shapes who you are, including your beliefs and your moral values. Your friends and whoever you spend time interacting with control your own personal Overton Window. Certainly many people are capable of withstanding the compulsive power of Overton Window but it's not generally a bet you want to take or a position you want to place yourself in. Bad company corrupts good morals. And you make a choice as to whether or not you spend time with bad company.

I am able to drop the usual model that any reality below the observable works the way the observable one works. Humans are probably incapable of understanding how the universe truly works. I don't think that's a controversial way to model the universe.

But then why the Christian God? I can get to A, but I can't go from A to B.

I suppose the way I'd put it is that, in my view, He's got a good pitch. That is, I find the deeper claims of Christianity map well onto the world I observe: things like sin and its consequences, What it has to say about how humans work, what is necessary, which things remain constant over time, etc. It promises things that I want, and in my experience it delivers on those promises in tangible ways in the material world. The arc of my life diverged markedly for the worse when I became an Atheist, and diverged markedly for the better when I became a Christian again. I don't expect my personal experiences to be persuasive to people who are not me, but they are very persuasive to me.

things like sin and its consequences

What exactly are the consequences? We've had this discussion before and you never really made it clear. I see people succeeding all the time despite sinning, and I see the virtuous suffer. The only time I see sin consistently punished in this life is when the sin is against someone who can strike back or has a patron who can. Otherwise, sin away - perhaps you'll pay up in the world to come, but I see no evidence that you will in this life. Why is that wrong?

As this condition becomes more fully established, you will be gradually freed from the tiresome business of providing Pleasures as temptations. As the uneasiness and his reluctance to face it cut him off more and more from all real happiness, and as habit renders the pleasures of vanity and excitement and flippancy at once less pleasant and harder to forgo (for that is what habit fortunately does to a pleasure) you will find that anything or nothing is sufficient to attract his wandering attention. You no longer need a good book, which he really likes, to keep him from his prayers or his work or his sleep; a column of advertisements in yesterday’s paper will do. You can make him waste his time not only in conversation he enjoys with people whom he likes, but in conversations with those he cares nothing about on subjects that bore him. You can make him do nothing at all for long periods. You can keep him up late at night, not roistering, but staring at a dead fire in a cold room. All the healthy and outgoing activities which we want him to avoid can be inhibited and nothing given in return, so that at last he may say, as one of my own patients said on his arrival down here, “I now see that I spent most of my life in doing neither what I ought nor what I liked”. The Christians describe the Enemy as one “without whom Nothing is strong”. And Nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them, in drumming of fingers and kicking of heels, in whistling tunes that he does not like, or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, the creature is too weak and fuddled to shake off.

The whole difficulty of understanding Hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly Nothing. But ye'll have had experiences . . . it begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps criticising it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticise the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine.

From personal experience, embrace of sin observably eats the self away even while you are still living. I could see myself becoming noticeably less human over time, more wretched, more insectile, ingrown in a miserable spiral of decay. And the reverse was true as well: pursuing Christ made me more human, allowed me out of myself in ways I had not been able to achieve while chasing appetite and pride, bitterness and vanity. I left Christianity because I believed it was making me miserable; as an atheist, I grew considerably more miserable, and eventually the contrast between my own life and the lives of my Christian family members grew too stark to ignore. I returned to the church, and my life now is incomparably better.

You must see how that just sounds like "separating from family made me feel worse". Those whose Christian family was, in fact, the miserable part of their lives, or those whose family was not religious at all, would have different experiences.

You must see how that just sounds like "separating from family made me feel worse".

I was not separated from my family in any sense but the spiritual. I spent lots of time with them throughout my time as an atheist; I was the "cool uncle" to their kids, I lived close to my parents and spent much time with them, I relished our time together. But I did not want a family for roughly the same reasons I didn't want to believe in God: it would interfere with my various habits of pleasure-seeking and vanity. Over time, it became undeniable that I had much the worse end of that trade-off.

All sorts of people have all sorts of experiences; I can only speak to mine, and what I've observed second-hand in those I know. My observation is that sin makes people miserable, generally in fairly obvious ways, and that both I myself and others I observe construct elaborate justifications why their misery is the fault of anyone other than themselves and their own choices. Sometimes this is even true, to a limited extent: people really do harm each other very badly, and it is certainly possible to have been harmed, wronged, damaged by the actions of others. But it is also possible to harm one's self, and people do so all the time.

But that merely provides evidence for the idea that Christianity has significant pragmatic value for ordinary people navigating their lives and for societies organizing themselves, something which even atheist thinkers have been freely acknowledging for a while now.

But to tie this to OP's original question, you'd have to somehow demonstrate how these benefits imply the truth of the various historical and metaphysical claims Christianity makes. This is IMO very hard to do, especially given that the same psychological benefits are often believably claimed to be enjoyed by the practitioners of other, mutually incompatible religions as well.

As with many other atheists/agnostics with a sympathy towards Christianity, my problem is that I see the wholesome effects of dedicated Christian practice on an individual and societal level, I can even fully entertain the idea that there is and will never be a secular project with the same effects, at least at scale, but when I get to the part where I try to believe in the whole religious complex of ideas I inevitably run into a brick wall made out of serious scholarship on the Bible, early Church history and the surrounding historical sources, the non-specific/non-Christian/universalist nature of the strongest philosophical/theological arguments for the existence of God, the weaknesses of the theological arguments for a specific/historical version of God, and the plethora of presented evidence of similar epistemological strength for other, completely different religions that I'd have little principled reason to reject if I were to start accepting the equivalent Christian arguments.

If Rationalism is systematized winning, and Christianity has systemized "pragmatic value"/winning...

Would you mind going into more detail on the return to Christianity? Not necessarily "how the arc of your life changed" (though if that's not too private, by all means), but more what got you to step back through the door? It seems all so strange in the particular to me that I find it unbelievable. Why Jesus at all? Why was he born there? Why the crucifixion? I don't expect a theologian's answers, but I'm trying to give the flavor of why it seems so strange in time and place and detail to me.

But then why the Christian God? I can get to A, but I can't go from A to B.

Might as well pick something. Christianity isn't what I picked, but I get it.

What did you pick? If you are willing to share, of course

Nothing organized.

Religion is a difficult thing for me. I've never been able to square Christianity's Message with its Commandments.

It's pretty impressive how the Catholic Church was able to survive as an institution for almost 2000 years, far longer than anything else currently extant in the Western world.

That's about all I can come up with.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats