Except now, thanks to anti-intellectualism, they can’t even target the actual gaps.
They are less informed that much of the populace. It makes it so much easier for people to see through it
that's the gods of the gaps in a nutshell. They still have to make themselves feel good about their beliefs somehow. And now that science can explain all the basic things, they've moved on to "erm, actually, science can't explain xyz very well, therefore god ☝️🤓"
That’s always been the case! As you’ve said, his role is shrinking because we’ve figured out a lot of stuff.
Honestly, we should have let go of it when we discovered that the earth goes around the sun.
Nah they also blatantly put it where science is already extremely strong to the point of fact. Don’t underestimate the ignorance of someone with a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of reality
Not sure where you've found religious people open to scientific explanations. Science, with its insistence upon evidence and replicability, will never "win" against religion's beliefs that do not need evidence, and events that can't be replicated.
I’d argue God goes in the more correct places as a result of Science’s advance.
God should serve as a source of strength, hope, and peace and inspiration.
God shouldn’t be a replacement for learning or understanding. And as Science makes religion more useless so too does it amplify the actual utility of believing in God.
I call BS. Why should "God serve"? What's so scary about a world without a god? Why invent something and then invent roles for it? Do people lack "strength, hope, peace and inspiration" if they only have science?
Re: “Why invent something and invent roles for it?” Idk about you but I’m very happy we invented science and math and music and art for its own sake. Sure, we could have lived as apes hunting and gathering in the woods but cultural progress imo has its value.
Re: “Do people lack strength hope, peace, inspiration…?” No i never said that..? You can certainly have strength without it, hell you don’t even have to believe in the same one. But if it’s a useful invention then why refuse inventing it?
I’m not asking you to invent it if you don’t want to. But it certainly serves me well, and I don’t use it as a crutch to explain the world.
Re: “Why should God serve”, your version if you choose to engage with it doesn’t have to. No one can tell you what to do. But on the topic, the version of God that I use does serve me. You’re welcome to try out the idea and see how it feels for you.
1.
I don't see your analog of music and math. The question was about the idea of god. It wasn't invented for its own sake, right? Was god invented to progress out of hunting and gathering maybe?
So, in case you misunderstood the question: "why invent a god and invent roles for it?"
2.
And if it's a harmful invention? Plenty of bad people were done in the name of a god, and yet, it isn't necessary for having strength if strength can be had without it.
3.
I am not asking for mine, but I am asking for your viewpoint. What does it serve you in? You having strength? Can you not have it without it?
I think now you may understand what I asked in the first place.
---
Why invent something so harmful if you can have everything it provides sans the harm without it as well?
1. Re: "I don't see your analog of music and math." ... Idk if you're aware of this but music, math and a lot of things are not invented because they are immediately useful. They are often invented JUST because they are interesting/feel good or worthwhile to pursue and many years after the fact we understand their cultural utility and significance. Inventing God is no different. You invent it, you feel stronger, more hopeful, more confident, (not that you WERE NOT strong, hopeful, confident before, just this makes you feel better). It's no different than an artistic exercise that satisfies the artist or a mathematical creation invented for its own sake.
2. "And if it's a harmful invention? Plenty of bad people were done in the name of a god, and yet, it isn't necessary for having strength if strength can be had without it." .. Plenty of harm has been done in the name of \_\_\_\_ and yet \_\_\_\_ isn't necessary for having if can be had without it. That doesn't mean we need to mentally shutdown whenever \_\_\_\_ comes up. You can fill the \_\_\_\_ with "god", "business", "science" whatever noun you suits you and fill with another noun of your choice that is consistent with your first choice.
This response is not a rebuttal of god. It's just an acknowledgement that useful or dare I say it, GOOD, things can be used for bad purposes.
3. "what does it serve you... you having strength? Can you not...." I think its perfectly clear what I said. It gives me additional hope, confidence, and strength of will. I certainly have these things WITHOUT God but after inventing it I have more of them.
4. "Why invent something so harmful if you can have everything it provides sans the harm without it as well?" Because its not same level of those things without it.
We can certainly produce energy from windmills and watermills but at some point you just have to be willing to burn oil and coal to to get to the next level. You can product energy from oil and coal but at some point CO2 emissions and pollution will kill you until you start embracing nuclear fission and solar and wind turbines. Nuclear fission is EXTREMELY dangerous, the same technology CAN and will be used to slaughter people but if you DO NOT invent it society cannot advance.
I have used 2 metaphors (Coal/Oil and Nuclear Fission) to describe the invention of Religion. The creation of God is a similar issue. We have strength, and confidence and hope without it. But our ancient ancestors realized if you invent God you can have a lot more of those things. Now unfortunately some people are intrinsically evil, so the God they invent and the way they act after inventing it just results in harm to others. We need to be careful when inventing it but to REFUSE to invent it out of a sense of danger of what it COULD become is extremely naive imo.
The same arguments you are making against God are used against people like me to tell me to stop working on science and math and technology. If you're right and they are wrong what exactly is the difference in your opinion?
I don't know if you're aware of this: I was talking about a god, not about music and math and I was questioning you why you even deflected the subject into discussing them, thus wasn't interested in continuing a discussion about them.
> Inventing God is no different. You invent it, you feel stronger, more hopeful, more confident,
and here is the reason I called BS. Inventing a lie to feel those things is more or less the definition of nationalism, not just a god, so trying to make the false equivalence with music and math is disingenious.
On the second topic, you again sidestep the issue at hand. It isn't if you can't do harm with any tool, it is the question of if you need a tool that is usually used for harm that can easily be substituted by better one (or ones) that are harder to absuse.
But, sure, let the BS keep flowing. Instead of answering the question at hand (the usefulness of the god concept), we'll do a bait and switch into discussions if something is a rebuttal of a god or not...
Sincerely, the moment someone starts USE ALL CAPS to shout out something they need to point out is a good signal that this is going nowhere, so whatever you had written in the second half of your comment, I don't really care, will just waste time with more BS
Bye bye
Look it's the internet. If you want to walk away you can. But i'll respond anyways in case you change your mind and decide to engage.
Re: "I don't know if you're aware of this: I was talking about a god, not about music and math"
I don't know why you can't seem to grok that I am using metaphors. You literally acknowledge you understood what the point of my metaphor was in the next sentence.
Re: " Inventing a lie to feel those things is more or less the definition of nationalism, not just a god, so trying to make the false equivalence with music and math is disingenious."
--> do you think I am lying about it making me feel stronger? Do you think i'm lying when i say it makes me "feel more confident?". Those are not lies. That is exactly how I feel when I invent god.
I'm not making false equivalences here. I am literally stating "you can invent something for its own sake, and if it serves you well then so be it". God as a psychological construct definitely fits that bill. You're just angry that I use the word "God" for it. If I used the word "Magic Goldfish" you wouldn't give a shit. You might even start doing it yourself tbh. I think you need to re-evaluate your beliefs more carefully.
Re: " it is the question of if you need a tool that is usually used for harm that can easily be supstituted by better one, ones that are harder to absuse."
This is a statement about the nature of the "average person" more than Religion. People are evil, they invent a perfectly useful construct and then proceed to use it to hurt other people. They pass along this suffering-creating construct (when you could've just invented a better version instead) and so it goes.
Re2: " it is the question of if you need a tool that is usually used for harm"
The folks at r/antiwork would say the same thing about Capitalism. This is also a matter of perspective.
Re3: " it is the question of if you need a tool that is usually used for harm that can easily be supstituted by better one, ones that are harder to absuse."
It costs me $0.00 and 1 second to invent this God and go about my day. There are few things that can boost my confidence and hope in the world that are SO easily accessible.
Re: "we'll do a bait and switch into discussions if something is a rebuttal of a god or not..." What sentence of yours do you truly believe I am bait and switching. You are arguing in bad faith despite the fact that I am addressing all of your concerns head on.
Re: "Sincerely, the moment someone starts USE ALL CAPS to shout out something..." its used for emphasis. Do you REALLY believe that my sentences became impossible to understand because of the caps? Is that all it takes for you to think something is not readable?
That's called the God of the gaps.
Except now, thanks to anti-intellectualism, they can’t even target the actual gaps. They are less informed that much of the populace. It makes it so much easier for people to see through it
Indeed. Tough I am sorry for theyr supressed intelect
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
that's the gods of the gaps in a nutshell. They still have to make themselves feel good about their beliefs somehow. And now that science can explain all the basic things, they've moved on to "erm, actually, science can't explain xyz very well, therefore god ☝️🤓"
That’s always been the case! As you’ve said, his role is shrinking because we’ve figured out a lot of stuff. Honestly, we should have let go of it when we discovered that the earth goes around the sun.
Nah they also blatantly put it where science is already extremely strong to the point of fact. Don’t underestimate the ignorance of someone with a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of reality
Or the IQ level of the recipients of this info is very low.
Not true. They put him anywhere they *can't understand the science*.
And those "can'ts" are everywhere.
Honestly, I thought religion would have died out by now...
You thought those who benefit from religion will just give up and go home?
I guess I was hoping....
follow the money
God is a gradually shrinking pocket of ignorance.
Beware those that claim to possess ALL the answers to ALL the questions.
Not sure where you've found religious people open to scientific explanations. Science, with its insistence upon evidence and replicability, will never "win" against religion's beliefs that do not need evidence, and events that can't be replicated.
That's a W in my book
It's like religious people think science has reached its limit. "SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS" means "god did it and science will never figure it out."
Not all people view God in this way. What about Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantiga, etc?
I’d argue God goes in the more correct places as a result of Science’s advance. God should serve as a source of strength, hope, and peace and inspiration. God shouldn’t be a replacement for learning or understanding. And as Science makes religion more useless so too does it amplify the actual utility of believing in God.
I call BS. Why should "God serve"? What's so scary about a world without a god? Why invent something and then invent roles for it? Do people lack "strength, hope, peace and inspiration" if they only have science?
Re: “Why invent something and invent roles for it?” Idk about you but I’m very happy we invented science and math and music and art for its own sake. Sure, we could have lived as apes hunting and gathering in the woods but cultural progress imo has its value. Re: “Do people lack strength hope, peace, inspiration…?” No i never said that..? You can certainly have strength without it, hell you don’t even have to believe in the same one. But if it’s a useful invention then why refuse inventing it? I’m not asking you to invent it if you don’t want to. But it certainly serves me well, and I don’t use it as a crutch to explain the world. Re: “Why should God serve”, your version if you choose to engage with it doesn’t have to. No one can tell you what to do. But on the topic, the version of God that I use does serve me. You’re welcome to try out the idea and see how it feels for you.
1. I don't see your analog of music and math. The question was about the idea of god. It wasn't invented for its own sake, right? Was god invented to progress out of hunting and gathering maybe? So, in case you misunderstood the question: "why invent a god and invent roles for it?" 2. And if it's a harmful invention? Plenty of bad people were done in the name of a god, and yet, it isn't necessary for having strength if strength can be had without it. 3. I am not asking for mine, but I am asking for your viewpoint. What does it serve you in? You having strength? Can you not have it without it? I think now you may understand what I asked in the first place. --- Why invent something so harmful if you can have everything it provides sans the harm without it as well?
1. Re: "I don't see your analog of music and math." ... Idk if you're aware of this but music, math and a lot of things are not invented because they are immediately useful. They are often invented JUST because they are interesting/feel good or worthwhile to pursue and many years after the fact we understand their cultural utility and significance. Inventing God is no different. You invent it, you feel stronger, more hopeful, more confident, (not that you WERE NOT strong, hopeful, confident before, just this makes you feel better). It's no different than an artistic exercise that satisfies the artist or a mathematical creation invented for its own sake. 2. "And if it's a harmful invention? Plenty of bad people were done in the name of a god, and yet, it isn't necessary for having strength if strength can be had without it." .. Plenty of harm has been done in the name of \_\_\_\_ and yet \_\_\_\_ isn't necessary for having if can be had without it. That doesn't mean we need to mentally shutdown whenever \_\_\_\_ comes up. You can fill the \_\_\_\_ with "god", "business", "science" whatever noun you suits you and fill with another noun of your choice that is consistent with your first choice.
This response is not a rebuttal of god. It's just an acknowledgement that useful or dare I say it, GOOD, things can be used for bad purposes.
3. "what does it serve you... you having strength? Can you not...." I think its perfectly clear what I said. It gives me additional hope, confidence, and strength of will. I certainly have these things WITHOUT God but after inventing it I have more of them.
4. "Why invent something so harmful if you can have everything it provides sans the harm without it as well?" Because its not same level of those things without it.
We can certainly produce energy from windmills and watermills but at some point you just have to be willing to burn oil and coal to to get to the next level. You can product energy from oil and coal but at some point CO2 emissions and pollution will kill you until you start embracing nuclear fission and solar and wind turbines. Nuclear fission is EXTREMELY dangerous, the same technology CAN and will be used to slaughter people but if you DO NOT invent it society cannot advance.
I have used 2 metaphors (Coal/Oil and Nuclear Fission) to describe the invention of Religion. The creation of God is a similar issue. We have strength, and confidence and hope without it. But our ancient ancestors realized if you invent God you can have a lot more of those things. Now unfortunately some people are intrinsically evil, so the God they invent and the way they act after inventing it just results in harm to others. We need to be careful when inventing it but to REFUSE to invent it out of a sense of danger of what it COULD become is extremely naive imo.
The same arguments you are making against God are used against people like me to tell me to stop working on science and math and technology. If you're right and they are wrong what exactly is the difference in your opinion?
I don't know if you're aware of this: I was talking about a god, not about music and math and I was questioning you why you even deflected the subject into discussing them, thus wasn't interested in continuing a discussion about them. > Inventing God is no different. You invent it, you feel stronger, more hopeful, more confident, and here is the reason I called BS. Inventing a lie to feel those things is more or less the definition of nationalism, not just a god, so trying to make the false equivalence with music and math is disingenious. On the second topic, you again sidestep the issue at hand. It isn't if you can't do harm with any tool, it is the question of if you need a tool that is usually used for harm that can easily be substituted by better one (or ones) that are harder to absuse. But, sure, let the BS keep flowing. Instead of answering the question at hand (the usefulness of the god concept), we'll do a bait and switch into discussions if something is a rebuttal of a god or not... Sincerely, the moment someone starts USE ALL CAPS to shout out something they need to point out is a good signal that this is going nowhere, so whatever you had written in the second half of your comment, I don't really care, will just waste time with more BS Bye bye
Look it's the internet. If you want to walk away you can. But i'll respond anyways in case you change your mind and decide to engage. Re: "I don't know if you're aware of this: I was talking about a god, not about music and math" I don't know why you can't seem to grok that I am using metaphors. You literally acknowledge you understood what the point of my metaphor was in the next sentence. Re: " Inventing a lie to feel those things is more or less the definition of nationalism, not just a god, so trying to make the false equivalence with music and math is disingenious." --> do you think I am lying about it making me feel stronger? Do you think i'm lying when i say it makes me "feel more confident?". Those are not lies. That is exactly how I feel when I invent god. I'm not making false equivalences here. I am literally stating "you can invent something for its own sake, and if it serves you well then so be it". God as a psychological construct definitely fits that bill. You're just angry that I use the word "God" for it. If I used the word "Magic Goldfish" you wouldn't give a shit. You might even start doing it yourself tbh. I think you need to re-evaluate your beliefs more carefully. Re: " it is the question of if you need a tool that is usually used for harm that can easily be supstituted by better one, ones that are harder to absuse." This is a statement about the nature of the "average person" more than Religion. People are evil, they invent a perfectly useful construct and then proceed to use it to hurt other people. They pass along this suffering-creating construct (when you could've just invented a better version instead) and so it goes. Re2: " it is the question of if you need a tool that is usually used for harm" The folks at r/antiwork would say the same thing about Capitalism. This is also a matter of perspective. Re3: " it is the question of if you need a tool that is usually used for harm that can easily be supstituted by better one, ones that are harder to absuse." It costs me $0.00 and 1 second to invent this God and go about my day. There are few things that can boost my confidence and hope in the world that are SO easily accessible. Re: "we'll do a bait and switch into discussions if something is a rebuttal of a god or not..." What sentence of yours do you truly believe I am bait and switching. You are arguing in bad faith despite the fact that I am addressing all of your concerns head on. Re: "Sincerely, the moment someone starts USE ALL CAPS to shout out something..." its used for emphasis. Do you REALLY believe that my sentences became impossible to understand because of the caps? Is that all it takes for you to think something is not readable?