What are the Benefits of Theism?

[tillingborn]

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)

You may be right. Personally, I have not found that my treatment of others has been affected by changes in my beliefs.

[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"?

Harmonious and peaceful.

You?

Well, I'm not a proponent of the "beautiful" criterion, so I would say it doesn't matter much. It seems to me that "beauty" is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I've heard all kinds of people claim all kinds of beliefs are, to their way of thinking, "beautiful." I don't always agree; but even if I did, I would not regard it as a telling feature of the belief.

I don't doubt that the Vatican architecture is "beautiful," after a fashion. I can see as much. Nor do I contest that the Hagia Sophia, the Unitarian Meeting Hall, the Hindu, Sikh, Mormon, or Masonic, or Hindu temples, along with their robes, sounds and ceremonies, have certain aesthetic features that are striking and appealing to those who are not troubled by the associated beliefs. But evil is not always ugly; if it were, it would have no appeal. So beauty is not something I use to gauge the quality of an ideology.

I read the Gita, and found the poetry very beautiful, and yet the theology bizarre and the ethics horrendous.

Now, "ugly" might be different, if by "ugly" we mean something that's not superficial. If we mean something like "morally repugnant," then perhaps we have a criterion that ought to alert us. But even then, we would need to look beyond our initial moral repulsion to find out what's really causing it. So aesthetics are just not a good way to know much about a belief, I would argue.

But let me put it to you: if a belief is totalitarian is it enough to warrant that belief, so long as it is "harmonious and peaceful"? I have no doubt that the followers of the Bhagwan, for example, found a kind of bliss and harmony when they were surrendered to his total control. Would we then say his ideology was admirable?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I do remember well. But as you observe, it says nothing about "aesthetics." For some strange reason, you seem to assume that the only alternative to "conclusive" knowledge (which we both agree is epistemologically unobtainable) is "aesthetics."

That puzzles me, because it seems to me that it's obviously not true. There are lots of possible other criteria, such as: the most rational, integrated, intelligible, morally upright, effective, evidentiary, psychologically accurate or plausible. So must ask: why do you ignore all those? And I especially must ask you to take stock of your own beliefs, whatever they are: do you hold them on merely aesthetic grounds? Are you unconcerned if they are not true? Do you trouble yourself about evidence, or effectiveness, or morality, or plausibility, or anything at all, other than aesthetics?

But if you do, why suppose anybody else is only capable of aesthetic choice-making? That's highly implausible, surely.

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.

You cut the quotation. Give the rest, then we'll talk.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

You did not answer my main question, i.e.
what are the benefits of theism to theists in general?

Point is all theists [the modest, extremists, fundamentalist] strive for the same benefits from believing in theism and each react differently to those general benefits.

My point is the benefits of theism to theists is mainly soteriological, i.e. gaining the assurance of eternal life in heaven and a sort of psychological security blanket from the threat of a existential dissonance.
Do you agree with this?

The psychological forces involved in theism and its benefits are so strong and very desperate that those who are more insecure will even kill others if they feel or sense their security is threatened.
Someone like Abraham was even willing to kill his own son to please God to retain his sense of psychological security.

[Belinda]

Veritas Aequitas wrote;

My point is the benefits of theism to theists is mainly soteriological, i.e. gaining the assurance of eternal life in heaven and a sort of psychological security blanket from the threat of a existential dissonance.

It is for some theists. Other theists believe the deity is heavenly order and harmony which rules mundane existence even though we may not encounter much of it. Heavenly order and harmony are worthy ideals and aspirations. People feel encouraged to be orderly and harmonious when they believe all is well despite appearances.

[tillingborn]

Remember what you said:

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

I do remember well. But as you observe, it says nothing about "aesthetics." For some strange reason, you seem to assume that the only alternative to "conclusive" knowledge (which we both agree is epistemologically unobtainable) is "aesthetics."

That puzzles me, because it seems to me that it's obviously not true. There are lots of possible other criteria, such as: the most rational, integrated, intelligible, morally upright, effective, evidentiary, psychologically accurate or plausible. So must ask: why do you ignore all those?

I haven't ignored any of those. On several occasions I have stated that there are cultural, historical, geographical and pragmatic considerations. I am quite happy to make that list as long as you wish and still we could agree that conclusive knowledge is epistemologically unobtainable. Not least of the issues is how to rank the long list of considerations - does moral uprightness trump effectiveness, for example?

And I especially must ask you to take stock of your own beliefs, whatever they are: do you hold them on merely aesthetic grounds? Are you unconcerned if they are not true? Do you trouble yourself about evidence, or effectiveness, or morality, or plausibility, or anything at all, other than aesthetics?

If what I write doesn't persuade you that I have given a great deal of time to these questions, you will just have to take my word for it.

But if you do, why suppose anybody else is only capable of aesthetic choice-making? That's highly implausible, surely.

Frankly, the sort of calculus necessary to eliminate aesthetic choices is impractical; in essence, that's the problem that Bentham faced with his Felicific calculus. Even if we could agree on a list of criteria, and how to rank them, we then have to slot in the numbers which we have discussed and agreed on. That, I would suggest, is not how people make decisions.

I think we can both see that they easily can.

That isn't evidence.

You cut the quotation. Give the rest, then we'll talk.

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.

[Skepdick]

does moral uprightness trump effectiveness, for example?

If you think they are mutually exclusive, then you probably want both.

[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?

You did not answer my main question, i.e.
what are the benefits of theism to theists in general?

Point is all theists [the modest, extremists, fundamentalist] strive for the same benefits from believing in theism and each react differently to those general benefits.

My point is the benefits of theism to theists is mainly soteriological, i.e. gaining the assurance of eternal life in heaven and a sort of psychological security blanket from the threat of a existential dissonance.
Do you agree with this?

The psychological forces involved in theism and its benefits are so strong and very desperate that those who are more insecure will even kill others if they feel or sense their security is threatened.
Someone like Abraham was even willing to kill his own son to please God to retain his sense of psychological security.

well for one, in your view if there is a God then mankind is in need of a relationship with God, man is made to be with God. therefore call it what you will the necessity is there no matter the denial thereof.

two you are incorrect in you assessment of what Abraham did. the God of Abraham is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob of which Abraham is the father and Isaac is the son who was offered and Jacob is renamed Israel of which the children of Israel are of.

note the NT revelation the Father in Heaven Jesus the Son who was offered and the Holy Spirit of which the born again are born of. Abraham understood what he was doing and knew what he did would not be forgotten, he also tells Isaac that day that the Lord will provided the offering.

it seems you assume without reading the text.

if you're trying to say men use religion as a justification for violence that's not news under the sun, but its always what the masses believe that is required to justify killing otherwise the masses don't agree and kill those who act against their agreed law "morals" if the agreement says they can.

so religion or not, what the masses believe is the key to justifying killing. and in human societies there has to be authorization to kill, therefore there are rules for that.

[DPMartin]

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."

I understand your point, but its always been my experience if you what to unite and people you just need a common enemy.

anyway if you wipe out the exposure to other thoughts, then the only thought left it what is dictated. it was Mao's practice even before his rise to power to eliminate any thinking other then what he dictated. if my memory serves he had a school of sorts in the hills that pretended to promote free thinking but he exercised the elimination of apposing opinions.

so unity not so much, more like authority to be feared.

[Immanuel Can]

...we could agree that conclusive knowledge is epistemologically unobtainable.

Okay, bit it seems to me you regard that as some kind of telling fact. It's really not, though. It's just "business as usual" for human beings.

The belief that "conclusive knowledge" was ever possible has always been an illusion, of course. But that does not at all suggest that probabilistic knowledge is not possible, or that higher-probability knowledge cannot be immeasurably better than low-probability theories. A theory with a probability of 50-50 isn't very good; and some are less than that. But a theory with a probability of being absolutely true, one that has, say, 99% percent probability (like, say the law of gravity), is as good as we ever need it to be in order for us to know how to act.

And different issues require different levels of probability. A scientific theory isn't a good one unless its probability is relatively high; but a theory about who can win the Super Bowl that rests on something better than 50-50 is actually about as good a theory as your going to find in regard to that particular issue.

does moral uprightness trump effectiveness, for example?

Of course it does. That is, if you're speaking of something genuinely morally right versus something merely pragmatically successful.

And I especially must ask you to take stock of your own beliefs, whatever they are: do you hold them on merely aesthetic grounds? Are you unconcerned if they are not true? Do you trouble yourself about evidence, or effectiveness, or morality, or plausibility, or anything at all, other than aesthetics?

If what I write doesn't persuade you that I have given a great deal of time to these questions, you will just have to take my word for it.

So your word is that the only reason you believe what you believe is because of aesthetics? Because unless that's true, you have no justification in supposing it of others.

But if you do, why suppose anybody else is only capable of aesthetic choice-making? That's highly implausible, surely.

Frankly, the sort of calculus necessary to eliminate aesthetic choices is impractical; in essence, that's the problem that Bentham faced with his Felicific calculus.

Actually, Bentham had no "aesthetic" variable at all in his Hedonic Calculus, nor did Mill, with his modifications. And neither of them was even remotely concerned with the question of aesthetics.

So it makes me wonder where you got the "aesthetic" idea from: it certainly wasn't from them.

Even if we could agree on a list of criteria, and how to rank them, we then have to slot in the numbers which we have discussed and agreed on. That, I would suggest, is not how people make decisions.

Of course it's not. But neither is "aesthetics" how any sensible person makes decisions about his/her belief system. You must surely see that.

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.

Great. Thank you.

So now, provide your particular case, so we can make the judgment you'd like, and we'll go ahead.

[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."

I understand your point, but its always been my experience if you what to unite and people you just need a common enemy.

Yes, that's the most useful strategy: find an enemy, and invoke hatred to unify the people.

The first such "enemies" are external: they're the non-revolutionaries, the visibly dissenting to the Socialist State, the people with alternate political views, or religious views, or whatever. They die first.

But once you've created the Socialist State, and have won, and have control, where are you going to get the "enemy" you can use to justify your continued reign, and also the explanation for why the Revolution has not produced the utopian goals it promised? And so the answer always turns out to be the same: it's the "counter-revolutionaries" that are to blame, the "enemies of the state" buried among us, the "betrayers of the revolution" who are insufficiently "committed to the cause," and so on. And these become the new focus of rage.

In other words, the excuse for the Socialist dictators' own failures is that we, the people, weren't unified in support of their revolution. There were dissenters, disbelievers, discouragers, and so forth, scattered even among the "faithful". And utopia won't come until we all are unified. So the State must be cleansed of these defiling influences, these disunifying elements...

That's when the purges begin. (I mean, you know what a "purge" is, right? It's when you "get out of your system" the pollutants that are defiling it. And that's what the Socialist authorities do next. They start a purge.) They first devour any real "dissenters" they can find, but afterward have to root out those who are less than fully committed, or who have made some slip in political correctness, or who are just accused and suspected of maybe being weak on "revolutionary principles." So the Socialist State starts eating the flesh of its own members. And it continues that as long as it can, until its own inevitable collapse. For you cannot devour your own flesh forever, without destroying your own strength completely.

However, Socialists NEVER admit they were wrong; they right their countries flaming into the ground. And to the end, they'll claim that their revolution was 'betrayed" by not enough people buying in with enough fervour.

In other words, it was a problem of unity all along, they'll say.

[tillingborn]

The belief that "conclusive knowledge" was ever possible has always been an illusion, of course. But that does not at all suggest that probabilistic knowledge is not possible, or that higher-probability knowledge cannot be immeasurably better than low-probability theories.

We are talking about belief. My point is that the relationship between probability and belief is not linear. Nobody does an equal amount of research on every belief. People justify their beliefs with all sorts of reasons, but ultimately, the beliefs they will devote the most effort to are the ones they like.

So it makes me wonder where you got the "aesthetic" idea from: it certainly wasn't from them.

It is just the word you are struggling with; the idea is not new, nor controversial. Confirmation bias is a problem even in academia; everybody knows that even the most conscientious researcher has partialities.

[Immanuel Can]

My point is that the relationship between probability and belief is not linear. Nobody does an equal amount of research on every belief. People justify their beliefs with all sorts of reasons, but ultimately, the beliefs they will devote the most effort to are the ones they like.

One doesn't have to devote equal time to every belief, because not all beliefs are equally rational, plausible, evidentiary, historical, logically sound and so on. So what one has to do is simply to search enough to rule in the much smaller field of reasonable candidates, then do more research on those that have persistent plausibility. You won't go far until you know what you're looking for.

Moreover, one doesn't have to know every possible wrong answer to 2+2, once one knows for sure that it's 4. Find the right answer, and you can dispense with the wrong ones.

But at no point does "Well, I went for the belief because even though I didn't think it was plausible or true, it was aesthetic" make any sense.

So it makes me wonder where you got the "aesthetic" idea from: it certainly wasn't from them.

It is just the word you are struggling with;

Struggling? Oh, not at all. Heh. I know very well what it means. So I'm not finding any "struggle" very onerous.

Confirmation bias is a problem even in academia; everybody knows that even the most conscientious researcher has partialities.

Well, the point of knowing what "confirmation bias" is, is not that one can pretend everybody automatically has it, so it's okay -- the point of identifying it is to eliminate it.

And this is done by checking oneself against contrary possibilities before settling on an interpretation of the data. That can involve considering alternate hypotheses, or reading contrary studies, or subjecting your data to intelligent reviewers who do not share your perspective, or publishing your sources and your raw data with your results so that they come under a broader critique. Whatever you do, the point is to guard against the possibility that your interpretation of the data is merely "aesthetic" or personal.

But just rolling over and accepting "confirmation bias"? No intellectually-honest person should do that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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?

You did not answer my main question, i.e.
what are the benefits of theism to theists in general?

Point is all theists [the modest, extremists, fundamentalist] strive for the same benefits from believing in theism and each react differently to those general benefits.

My point is the benefits of theism to theists is mainly soteriological, i.e. gaining the assurance of eternal life in heaven and a sort of psychological security blanket from the threat of a existential dissonance.
Do you agree with this?

The psychological forces involved in theism and its benefits are so strong and very desperate that those who are more insecure will even kill others if they feel or sense their security is threatened.
Someone like Abraham was even willing to kill his own son to please God to retain his sense of psychological security.

well for one, in your view if there is a God then mankind is in need of a relationship with God, man is made to be with God. therefore call it what you will the necessity is there no matter the denial thereof.

I agree, humans are driven to believe in a God and for the majority -in this present phase - is activated naturally and necessarily.

But my question is WHY it is natural and necessary for the majority at present?

Thus,
My point is the benefits of theism to theists is mainly soteriological, i.e. gaining the assurance of eternal life in heaven and a sort of psychological security blanket from the threat of a existential dissonance.
Do you agree with this?

two you are incorrect in you assessment of what Abraham did. the God of Abraham is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob of which Abraham is the father and Isaac is the son who was offered and Jacob is renamed Israel of which the children of Israel are of.

note the NT revelation the Father in Heaven Jesus the Son who was offered and the Holy Spirit of which the born again are born of. Abraham understood what he was doing and knew what he did would not be forgotten, he also tells Isaac that day that the Lord will provided the offering.

it seems you assume without reading the text.

What I read is Abraham was willing offered his son as a sacrifice to God.

My claim is theists' attachment to their security blanket [belief in God] is so STRONG to the extent, they are willing to sacrifice their sons/daughters to their God or for their God's sake. It has happened with Abraham and it still going on with Muslims [not Christians] who are condoning their children to be suicide bombers.

What is critical here is what is the root causes that trigger theist to go the extreme of even sacrificing their own lives, children' life and killing others for the sake of God.

if you're trying to say men use religion as a justification for violence that's not news under the sun, but its always what the masses believe that is required to justify killing otherwise the masses don't agree and kill those who act against their agreed law "morals" if the agreement says they can.

so religion or not, what the masses believe is the key to justifying killing. and in human societies there has to be authorization to kill, therefore there are rules for that.

There may be some psychopaths who take advantage of the God's excuse to kill humans for their own self-interests and psychology. I am not referring to them.

What I am referring to are theists who are very normal people, and SOME of them who are willing to kill for God's sake because they are ignorant of the root cause, i.e. the existential psychology that is driving to believe in a God and will kill others to please God.

The solution [toward the future, not now] is this;

• 1. Theists need to understand the critical root cause that drive them to believe in a God.
  I note you are ignorant of what is the root cause that drive you to believe in a God.
  All you are focused on is you must believe in a God who can promise you salvation of eternal life in heaven.
  
  2. The critical root cause is rely on God as a consonance to relieve the terrible existential dissonance - this is very psychological. This existential dissonance is inherent and unavoidable in ALL humans and active in the majority.
  
  3. When people understand the root cause [2] has a psychological basis, and there are FOOLPROOF alternatives to deal with the inherent existential dissonance [in future], they will not need to rely on a belief-in-God, i.e. then there will be no theists. At present there are already such fool proof alternatives but not effective for the majority.
  
  4. I understand Christianity is a very pacifist religion, thus benign and in no way will condone evil and violence. But the problem is the very existence of theists and acceptance of theism provide moral support to other theists who are evil prone. As such, there is need to wean off all theists and for them to adopt the absolutely-benign approaches in dealing with the inherent existential dissonance.
  
  5. When there are no theists, there will not be any possible theistic-driven evil and violence at all. [there will still be evil and violence by the seculars and these must be dealt with within secular means].

Thus it is critical all theists need to understand what are the real underlying benefits of theism within themselves, i.e. the psychological basis of relieving the existential dissonance.

Agree to the above?

[tillingborn]

My point is that the relationship between probability and belief is not linear. Nobody does an equal amount of research on every belief. People justify their beliefs with all sorts of reasons, but ultimately, the beliefs they will devote the most effort to are the ones they like.

One doesn't have to devote equal time to every belief, because not all beliefs are equally rational, plausible, evidentiary, historical, logically sound and so on.

No, one doesn't, largely because other people will do it for you. You don't appear to understand the relationship between evidence and belief. Earlier you mentioned gravity:

a theory with a probability of being absolutely true, one that has, say, 99% percent probability (like, say the law of gravity)

Which law of gravity are you talking about? Scientists do not 'believe' Newton's Law of gravity so much as they use it, because it works for most approximations. It might be that what you actually mean is some version of Hume's critique of causation: that inductive reasoning is never 100%, but that isn't news to anyone.

So what one has to do is simply to search enough to rule in the much smaller field of reasonable candidates, then do more research on those that have persistent plausibility. You won't go far until you know what you're looking for.

What do you suppose makes Michael Behe decide that the flagella of some bacteria supports his belief that they were created by God? In the context of the discussion, one benefit of Theism is that it makes science a good deal easier. It may be that Behe is correct, and that his research led him to what he was looking for, as you suggest. It may also be that he found what he was looking for.

Moreover, one doesn't have to know every possible wrong answer to 2+2, once one knows for sure that it's 4. Find the right answer, and you can dispense with the wrong ones.

But at no point does "Well, I went for the belief because even though I didn't think it was plausible or true, it was aesthetic" make any sense.

Wittingly or otherwise, you are attacking a strawman. I said early on that I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone's belief.

So it makes me wonder where you got the "aesthetic" idea from: it certainly wasn't from them.

It is just the word you are struggling with;

Struggling? Oh, not at all. Heh. I know very well what it means. So I'm not finding any "struggle" very onerous.

You perhaps have forgotten that at first you couldn't understand that ideas can have aesthetic appeal:

I thought that such a manifestly wild claim I was unwilling to point out its faults. But since you repeat it, if true, it would mean that people choose their "religion" not for truth but because it's somehow aesthetically appealing.

No doubt some people choose a particular church, mosque or synagogue because they like the architecture, the music or the rituals, or because it's "cultural" to them, and they don't actually give a fig whether it's true or not.

Confirmation bias is a problem even in academia; everybody knows that even the most conscientious researcher has partialities.

Well, the point of knowing what "confirmation bias" is, is not that one can pretend everybody automatically has it, so it's okay -- the point of identifying it is to eliminate it.

And this is done by checking oneself against contrary possibilities before settling on an interpretation of the data. That can involve considering alternate hypotheses, or reading contrary studies, or subjecting your data to intelligent reviewers who do not share your perspective, or publishing your sources and your raw data with your results so that they come under a broader critique. Whatever you do, the point is to guard against the possibility that your interpretation of the data is merely "aesthetic" or personal.

But just rolling over and accepting "confirmation bias"? No intellectually-honest person should do that.

And no intellectually honest person should imply that is what I have done.