What are the Benefits of Theism?

[tillingborn]

Where we disagree is that you are adamant that aesthetics has no role in decision making.

I've actually said nothing of the kind.

I haven't said there are NO people who like their religion or their Atheism for "aesthetic" reasons. I've also not said that people who actually believe their ideology can't ALSO find it "aesthetic." All I've said is that pure "aesthetics" is a lousy reason for believing anything, and one in which I'll bet you'd never indulge, yourself.

So I'm not "adamant" about what you insist I'm "adamant" about.

It was clumsily put, and I take your point.

Given that a group of people can agree about the evidence and arguments for God, to what do you attribute the distribution of Theists and non-Theists in any population?

Decisions.

Given that you agree that aesthetics can be a factor, what role does it have in decision making?

[Immanuel Can]

Given that you agree that aesthetics can be a factor, what role does it have in decision making?

It has the role, at best, of a mildly positive consideration...often, no more than a happy accident-of-the-case. It certainly does not have the value of a decisive consideration, if important considerations are not in place.

So to say that a belief is "beautiful" might be true, but it's a paltry reason for belief in that ideology, whatever it may be. A person who believes in an ideology ONLY because it's "beautiful," and not because it's rational, evidentiary and true, is not a real believer in it at all.

[Belinda]

Given that you agree that aesthetics can be a factor, what role does it have in decision making?

It has the role, at best, of a mildly positive consideration...often, no more than a happy accident-of-the-case. It certainly does not have the value of a decisive consideration, if important considerations are not in place.

So to say that a belief is "beautiful" might be true, but it's a paltry reason for belief in that ideology, whatever it may be. A person who believes in an ideology ONLY because it's "beautiful," and not because it's rational, evidentiary and true, is not a real believer in it at all.

An ugly belief is always bad for the souls of believers. Therefore a belief that is not beautiful is bad for the souls of believers.Therefore unless a belief is beautiful it is bad for the souls of believers.

It is essential to at least aim to define beauty. There is no goodness and no truth where beauty is absent.
The Holy Spirit seeks goodness, truth, and beauty. In proportion as these three are not in harmony in a soul that soul is in danger of error. Therefore beauty is a clear indication the belief is true and good, and is sometimes the only indication a belief is true and good.

Calvin sought to banish superficial ornament and emotionalism ; Calvin did not seek to banish beauty.

Don't think commercialised travesties of art are beautiful.

[tillingborn]

Given that you agree that aesthetics can be a factor, what role does it have in decision making?

It has the role, at best, of a mildly positive consideration...often, no more than a happy accident-of-the-case. It certainly does not have the value of a decisive consideration, if important considerations are not in place.

So to say that a belief is "beautiful" might be true, but it's a paltry reason for belief in that ideology, whatever it may be. A person who believes in an ideology ONLY because it's "beautiful," and not because it's rational, evidentiary and true, is not a real believer in it at all.

I think we should leave the people who believe only for aesthetic reasons out of it and stick to those who, after thorough examination, have reached the conclusion that:

No human knowledge is "conclusive." It's all probabilistic.

Even those people have different attitudes to the existence of God. Two scholars can read the same pile of books, give equal consideration to the evidence yet still hold opposite opinions. As I say, history, geography and pragmatism are factors, but ultimately whether someone believes an idea that is probabilistic is determined by their aesthetic sensibilities. If not aesthetics, then what?

[Immanuel Can]

It is essential to at least aim to define beauty.

Well, let's say we do that.

What do you intend to mean when you say an ideology must be "beautiful"?

[Immanuel Can]

I think we should leave the people who believe only for aesthetic reasons out of it

Okay. I have no objection to that. I never thought the "aesthetic" criterion was substantive anyway.

...and stick to those who, after thorough examination, have reached the conclusion that:

No human knowledge is "conclusive." It's all probabilistic.

Even those people have different attitudes to the existence of God. Two scholars can read the same pile of books, give equal consideration to the evidence yet still hold opposite opinions. As I say, history, geography and pragmatism are factors, but ultimately whether someone believes an idea that is probabilistic is determined by their aesthetic sensibilities. If not aesthetics, then what?

Well, we've ruled out aesthetics, so it's not that.

Is it really true that two "scholars" can "read the same pile of books," and "give equal consideration to the evidence," and thereafter "still hold opposite opinions"?

You're going to need to show me that such a thing can happen.

I have to presume you mean "two identically talented, rigorous, honest, diligent, ideologically-neutral and truthful scholars." And by "equal consideration," I presume you mean, "the same degree of discipline, rationality, knowledge and information," and then by "opposite" you mean "irreconcilably opposed to each other."

(If you meant less than all that, then the problem would simply disappear: it would simply mean that the scholars were not equal, their information or methodology was different, or their conclusions were only distinct-but-compatible. And in any of those cases, the answer to the question is very simple....different scholars, unequal levels of rigour and honesty, or there was really no conflict at all.)

Have I got you right, there?

Then can you show that such a thing has ever happened?

[DPMartin]

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being or deities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

It is very common knowledge that most theists will defend their theism like there is no tomorrow and some theists will even kill those who are perceived as a threat their belief in a God.

So what are the great benefits of theism to a theist or a group of theists that justify and drive some theists to the extreme of injuring and killing other humans?

there's a big difference between a theist and a zealot and you want to clump zealots in with theists. and some religions teach to war for their beliefs and god.

but many will go toe to toe for God and country, standing one's ground is not evil. bottom line is in world terms, if you're not willing to fight for what you believe then what good are you to the world.

there are very few religious folk that abstain from violence, but one doesn't need to be a theist to be violent does one?

[Immanuel Can]

...there's a big difference between a theist and a zealot...

Well, that's certain.

There's a difference between a Jihadi and a Hassidim. There's a difference between a Thugee and a Sufi. And there's a difference between a Crusader and an Anabaptist. It's interesting, though, that most skeptics seem so earnest to get rid of the whole lot together that they insist on lumping them together in the broader category, "Theists," and then make generalities that simply do not hold.

It's funny, because they'd surely object if you accused both pacifist Humanists from California and members of the Stazi secret police as being "secularists," and then dismissed both at a stroke, as being equally morally demented. But it's exactly what they do with "religions."

..standing one's ground is not evil. bottom line is in world terms, if you're not willing to fight for what you believe then what good are you to the world.

Absolutely. I mean, what do you really "believe" if you have no desire to stand for it?

But there are many ways to stand one's ground, too. The man who picks up a sword and hacks heads off is choosing one way; the person who refuses to recant her faith and is burned at the stake by hateful others, or the man who holds his moral ground so well he's falsely accused, beaten and abused and then nailed to a piece of wood have found a different way to "stand." But what a difference.

there are very few religious folk that abstain from violence

Actually, there are.

Statistically, over the course of history, "religions" are less than 8% of the total of human victims of war, for example: and half of those are victims of only one religion (Islam), while the other 3+% comprise all the other religions in the world, including everything from Catholics and Buddhists to Sikhs and Hutterites. And a many religions have a total of 0%.

So violence is not at all inherent to some religions. In fact, to various ones, like Quakers, Mennonites, the Salvation Army, and so on, it's anathema. They simply don't do it at all.

[tillingborn]

Is it really true that two "scholars" can "read the same pile of books," and "give equal consideration to the evidence," and thereafter "still hold opposite opinions"?

You're going to need to show me that such a thing can happen.

You must be familiar with thought experiments. I don't know if it is really true and I wouldn't bother trying to support it with real world evidence. What is demonstrably the case is that people who study the issue express different beliefs. All cultural, historical, geographic and pragmatic considerations being equal, do you have any evidence that "unequal levels of rigour and honesty" account for the differences in opinion? Are there statistics to demonstrate that Theists are more or less conscientious than non-Theists?

[attofishpi]

Is it really true that two "scholars" can "read the same pile of books," and "give equal consideration to the evidence," and thereafter "still hold opposite opinions"?

You're going to need to show me that such a thing can happen.

You must be familiar with thought experiments. I don't know if it is really true and I wouldn't bother trying to support it with real world evidence. What is demonstrably the case is that people who study the issue express different beliefs. All cultural, historical, geographic and pragmatic considerations being equal, do you have any evidence that "unequal levels of rigour and honesty" account for the differences in opinion? Are there statistics to demonstrate that Theists are more or less conscientious than non-Theists?

I i may just chime in - I honestly don't think humans (humanity) would have had a conscience about their actions quite at the more heightened level if it were not for the old (there might be some dude watching and ultimately judging me)

[Immanuel Can]

Is it really true that two "scholars" can "read the same pile of books," and "give equal consideration to the evidence," and thereafter "still hold opposite opinions"?

You're going to need to show me that such a thing can happen.

You must be familiar with thought experiments.

They're usually entirely fictitious, like the famous "Ship of Theseus." That situation is not actual, and impinges on reality in only an important principle or dynamic that is real. A "thought experiment," however is quite different from a factual claim; if you make a factual claim, namely that this situation you name actually happens, then a proof that it does is required.

We don't know if what you describe ever really does happen. But one case might clear that up.

What is demonstrably the case is that people who study the issue express different beliefs.

That really means nothing, of course.

We would need to know why they "express different beliefs," and whether those "beliefs" were diametrically different, or merely different aspects of a single thing, aspects that are reconcilable. We would also need to know that they were being forthcoming and impartial in every case, and were not using merely part-evidence or tainted evidence, and that their conclusions were both equally rational.

Do we know that? Not without a specific case.

...do you have any evidence that "unequal levels of rigour and honesty" account for the differences in opinion?

I think we can both see that they easily can. (For example, an experiment conducted with dirty equipment, or without a control group, or with careless observation is likely to be quite different from one that is conducted with clean equipment, a good control group or precise observation. Nobody can doubt that.) But whether they do or do not, in a particular case, would require us to have a particular case.

But you haven't given us a particular case, so we can't say.

[DPMartin]

...there's a big difference between a theist and a zealot...

Well, that's certain.

There's a difference between a Jihadi and a Hassidim. There's a difference between a Thugee and a Sufi. And there's a difference between a Crusader and an Anabaptist. It's interesting, though, that most skeptics seem so earnest to get rid of the whole lot together that they insist on lumping them together in the broader category, "Theists," and then make generalities that simply do not hold.

It's funny, because they'd surely object if you accused both pacifist Humanists from California and members of the Stazi secret police as being "secularists," and then dismissed both at a stroke, as being equally morally demented. But it's exactly what they do with "religions."

well I'm sure you understand to win a political views one need not make sense or tell the truth. only demonize and teach not to trust the status quo.

when Mao Zedong was in action religion was evil and cast out, and demonized like the OP is demonizing. same with USSR churches were not permitted and open worship was not permitted. much like the attempts on religion in the west.

the masses love tunnel vision it makes sense that way, no need to think it through just follow the yellow brick road being painted in front of them.

[Immanuel Can]

when Mao Zedong was in action religion was evil and cast out, and demonized like the OP is demonizing. same with USSR churches were not permitted and open worship was not permitted. much like the attempts on religion in the west.

Well, and not by accident. There is a direct cause-effect necessity between eliminating religion and the establishment of purely secular utopian plans. There is also a direct necessity, if one wants to establish totalitarianism, of replacing all "religions," ideologies and creeds, with their diverse answers to ultimate questions and their differing orientation points for ultimate values, with the single set of universal answers supplied by the State.

The first cry of totalitarianism is "unity."

[Belinda]

It is essential to at least aim to define beauty.

Well, let's say we do that.

What do you intend to mean when you say an ideology must be "beautiful"?

Harmonious and peaceful.

You?

[tillingborn]

What is demonstrably the case is that people who study the issue express different beliefs.

That really means nothing, of course.

We would need to know why they "express different beliefs,"

Aesthetics. Remember what you said:

No human knowledge is "conclusive." It's all probabilistic.

Even if it is simply a case that one or other group has done more reading, how do you know which group has done the correct reading?

...do you have any evidence that "unequal levels of rigour and honesty" account for the differences in opinion?

I think we can both see that they easily can.

That isn't evidence. Do you have a specific case of someone's belief being a result of their level of rigour and honesty?