What are the positive/negative effects of theism

[PrinceMyshkin]

vs those of atheism or agnosticism?

For the sake of this discussion, let's leave aside the question of whether God exists or not or what his nature might be. Let it be granted that for theists there is a 51-100% certainty that God does exist and is as one or another religion posits. For the others let it be allowed that there is as yet (or could never be) any irrefutable evidence of God's existence or nature.

For me (a "lapsed atheist") the chief benefit is the opportunity/challenge to live as if my every action will have either good or bad effect on the whole of humankind, according to Kant's Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

In other words, if I behave lovingly I have the hope that that might be reflected back on me. As to the great question of how (or why) this universe (and I) came into being, I wish I knew. But then I wish many things, and I have been trying to acquire the sovereign virtue of patence, the mother and father, it may be, of wisdom.

[Noisms]

What do you mean by a "lapsed atheist"? Does that mean you have doubts about your atheism? I'd be interested to hear about that, because I'm a lapsed Catholic and I'd like to know if the thought processes are the same! ;)

The benefit of theism, I think, is not so much that it gives your life purpose, but that it gives you a constant sense of referral; you have quite an honest conception and view of your own character and your own mistakes, given that you're often forced to reflect on what God would think of your thoughts and behaviour (seeing as how he's omniscient). Rigorous self-analysis is par for the course, and that's a good way to conduct your life, I think.

One of the wonderful things about Catholicism in particular is the principle of confession. As I said, I'm a lapsed Catholic so I'm viewing this totally in terms of what's psychologically healthy, not through religious or theistic goggles, and I believe that confession is extremely good for a person's mental wellbeing. As a kid I was forced to go every week, and often I had to wrack my brains to think of something to confess to ("I stole my sister's apple" was one I distinctly remember when it had been a quiet week), but I always felt great afterwards - that old cliche about a weight being lifted off your shoulders is absolutely true. Confessing is way more healthy than bottling everything up.

[PrinceMyshkin]

What do you mean by a "lapsed atheist"? Does that mean you have doubts about your atheism? I'd be interested to hear about that, because I'm a lapsed Catholic and I'd like to know if the thought processes are the same! ;)

I mean that for the longest time I not only had no need or desire for God and saw no evidence of 'His' existence, I also felt a kind of condescending pity for those who believed, and for those of my felow Jews who continued to believe after the Holocaust, I felt rage. As to the God who was anywhere in universe during the time of the Holocaust, all that was left, I felt, was blasphemy. That 'He' or It was a blasphemy. That to believe in 'Him' was blasphemous.

I still believe that last; but as for asserting confidently that there was no God I came to believe that it was as arrogant and blind of me to to maintain that as it was for those who believed in or argued his existence. After all, I do accept that there are quarks, neutrinos, dark matter, &c., even hypothetically the newer concept of "dark energy" - though no one claims to know what it is. And I find it thrilling even to hear rumours, or proofs that I cannot understand, of those things.


The benefit of theism, I think, is not so much that it gives your life purpose, but that it gives you a constant sense of referral; you have quite an honest conception and view of your own character and your own mistakes, given that you're often forced to reflect on what God would think of your thoughts and behaviour (seeing as how he's omniscient). Rigorous self-analysis is par for the course, and that's a good way to conduct your life, I think.

Wonderfully put as I have found all your posts. All of the foregoing is available to me via being as open as I can be to the effect I have on my fellow men and women. If what I put out to them pretty consistently causes a different reaction than what I had expected/hoped for then I ask myself Am I really putting out what I think I am - or even if so, am I putting it out badly?


One of the wonderful things about Catholicism in particular is the principle of confession. As I said, I'm a lapsed Catholic so I'm viewing this totally in terms of what's psychologically healthy, not through religious or theistic goggles, and I believe that confession is extremely good for a person's mental wellbeing. As a kid I was forced to go every week, and often I had to wrack my brains to think of something to confess to ("I stole my sister's apple" was one I distinctly remember when it had been a quiet week), but I always felt great afterwards - that old cliche about a weight being lifted off your shoulders is absolutely true. Confessing is way more healthy than bottling everything up.

Maybe so, but I remember a psychologist I was seeing who dismissed some 'insight' I'd had into my behaviour or my past, who said: "The cocktails parties in New York are filled with people who have had 'insights' - the question is, what are they doing with them?"

Have you come across my several mentions of an article on the bible and Christianity: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

[RichardHresko]

Pascal's Wager would argue that theism is the best bet you can make.

I think that the advantage of theism as opposed to one of the monotheistic religions is the willingness to accept that one does not have access to absolute knowledge.

The downside to theism is a lack at this stage of a strong community akin to churches, etc.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Pascal's Wager would argue that theism is the best bet you can make.

As I understand it, that was something of near deathbed conversion. Born a Catholic Pascal lived most of his life as a sceptic and as he felt death draw near he devised this, as close to a logical theorem as he could make it. It amounts to a sort of Place your bets -early! and as such strikes me as something of an insult to what one might call selfless faith, on the one hand, and the desire to reason oneself to a moral existence on the other.


I think that the advantage of theism as opposed to one of the monotheistic religions is the willingness to accept that one does not have access to absolute knowledge.

Evidently I misused the term "theism" or used it differently from you as I intended it to mean belief in and worship of God, i.e., via religion.


The downside to theism is a lack at this stage of a strong community akin to churches, etc.

Yes, there is that - and I miss it. The closest to it I have had is when I participated actively in a political party, and as a participant in a secular Jewish group dedicated to the preservation of Yiddish and the culture thereof.

[RichardHresko]

I understood theism and deism as being the same. Technically, theism could allow for revelation while deism denies it.

I don't think, from what little I have read, that Pascal had much of a sense of humor about these things. I think his idea was somewhat similar to Aquinas (I think I need to check into Aquinas Anonymous) in the quinque viae in that this would be an argument to give someone who would reject arguments based on authority/revelation.

One of the great seductions of religion is its aesthetics. Another is the sense of belonging. Elaine Pagels once wrote (I think in her book on the Gospel of St. Thomas) that she was a member of an evangelical church precisely because it made her feel like she belonged somewhere. She left when her church elders insisted that a friend of hers who had died (this is while she was a teenager) was certainly in Hell because he was not a born again Christian.

This is why I put at the top of my list of reasons in favor of a belief in God sans revelation the avoidance of the hubris that we know the absolute truth.

[PrinceMyshkin]

This is why I put at the top of my list of reasons in favor of a belief in God sans revelation the avoidance of the hubris that we know the absolute truth.

The avoidance of hubris as in Pope Benedict's recent reiteration the Roman Catholicism is the ONLY true church? And the pained responses to that by the members of some of the other uniquely True Churches?

What more hubristic activity can there be than the creation of an anthropomorphic God? Why is he never depicted as a zebra or a bonobo?

[RichardHresko]

Prince Myshkin writes:
"The avoidance of hubris as in Pope Benedict's recent reiteration the Roman Catholicism is the ONLY true church? And the pained responses to that by the members of some of the other uniquely True Churches?"

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I am no fan of "organized religion." I probably would prefer dealing with organized crime. It's often more honest, and the terms are easier. But then, I am from Brooklyn...

Prince Myshkin writes:
"What more hubristic activity can there be than the creation of an anthropomorphic God? Why is he never depicted as a zebra or a bonobo?"

Being willing to kill people over it?

I think Dean J. Swift addressed this in Gulliver's Travels.

[Noisms]

I still believe that last; but as for asserting confidently that there was no God I came to believe that it was as arrogant and blind of me to to maintain that as it was for those who believed in or argued his existence. After all, I do accept that there are quarks, neutrinos, dark matter, &c., even hypothetically the newer concept of "dark energy" - though no one claims to know what it is. And I find it thrilling even to hear rumours, or proofs that I cannot understand, of those things.

I've often thought that about Atheism. Even if you aren't prepared to believe that there is a God, it seems strange to stake ones beliefs on the axiom that he doesn't exist. Or, at least, it's no stranger than theism, which stakes its beliefs on the axiom that he does!



Wonderfully put as I have found all your posts. All of the foregoing is available to me via being as open as I can be to the effect I have on my fellow men and women. If what I put out to them pretty consistently causes a different reaction than what I had expected/hoped for then I ask myself Am I really putting out what I think I am - or even if so, am I putting it out badly?

That's true, but I think that the religious person is forced to analyse themselves even when there's no possibility of what they've done affecting anybody else. Even ones own thoughts are subject to that process, because the religious person believes that God can see even those.

I don't want to give the impression that it's motivated by fear, by the way - "God is watching you!" It's motivated by the knowledge that no matter how much you might strive to behave well, it doesn't really mean much if its just at skin level.



Maybe so, but I remember a psychologist I was seeing who dismissed some 'insight' I'd had into my behaviour or my past, who said: "The cocktails parties in New York are filled with people who have had 'insights' - the question is, what are they doing with them?"

Have you come across my several mentions of an article on the bible and Christianity: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

I'll have a look at the link.

Of course, confession isn't so much about insight as just unburdening yourself. That act in itself is a healthy one, I think.

[Demian]

If you never knew who your father was, wouldn't you want to know? Perhaps not everyone would. I want to know what the truth is and seek it out to the best of my ability every day. But this is unimportant when compared to all of the unresolved relationships in my life. I may know every truth, but if I were to become aware of the fact that there was not some other person somewhere to share my thoughts with I could not go on living. The benefits of 'theism' have nothing to do with rewards and punishments for me--these are minor matters compared to knowing who my Father is.

[Babbalanja]

After all, I do accept that there are quarks, neutrinos, dark matter, &c., even hypothetically the newer concept of "dark energy" - though no one claims to know what it is. And I find it thrilling even to hear rumours, or proofs that I cannot understand, of those things.Completely different issues.

I hear people say, "You need faith to believe the Sun will rise tomorrow morning." But that's a completely different faith than the belief in the existence of God or supernatural forces. We understand the physical basis of heliocentrism, and so we expect that the Sun will rise for completely rational reasons.

In contrast, faith in God is something you have in spite of what we understand about the universe. It's considered a higher truth, a transcendent reality, something that can't be understood rationally. I suppose the advantage to theism is that there's no chance you'll be proven wrong, because facts and evidence have no bearing on the concept.

[Demian]

It should be noted, however, that most of the current sciences evolved from occultic forms that are dismissed today as being superstitious nonsense. From astrology we have astronomy, and from alchemy chemistry was born. Both of these occultic systems had very rigid and inflexible laws that they operated by. Most nations were swayed by the notions of astrology for thousands of years-because it was a system of knowledge that worked for them. Huxley put it this way, "It is the notion of every great truth to begin as a heresy and end as a superstition."