On Questions of Substance
Of course, I admit that back when I was a theist myself, I had specific ideas about what I thought God was, but I wasn't ever telling anybody else what they should think about it. And these days, I have some ideas about what God might be, were it to actually exist in the sorts of guises promulgated by major world religions and religious practices. Those ideas are mostly based on what theists say God is. But, again, this has nothing to do with me "allowing" only one kind of thing and not another.
I think the issue that theists often run into is that I ask them the sorts of questions that their co-religionists typically never ask, because they typically make unspoken assumptions about the ontology of their shared religious beliefs. When a theist finds that I am asking for some justification for those assumptions, they are often confused and stumped for an answer that makes any kind of logical sense. The knee-jerk response I often see is that theists throw out random deepities, speaking as if their descriptions are actually intelligible, with the simultaneous implication (and, no doubt, belief) that they are actually saying something deep and profound.
What stands out is that these two paragraphs are extraordinarily enlightening for telling us nothing.
I know, that can feel like a really confusing idea, but this goes back to discussion of
anti-identification↗, and, sure, that's always been kind of confusing for you, but look at what you have to tell us: Yes, you "had specific ideas" about what you "thought God was", but more than telling us about those, what is important to you is to clarify that you weren't "telling anybody else what they should think about it". Even then you were better than some other; telling us that was your priority.
And then, again, the
four hundred-twenty words↑ and your need for something to react to in lieu of coming up with an affirmative thesis of your own. To wit, if in later times you had "some ideas about what God
might be, were it to actually exist in the sorts of guises promulgated by major world religions and religious practices", do you understand the joke about something being
a feature, not a bug? You come right out and say your ideas "ideas are mostly based on
what theists say God is", and while what theists say is not some mere insubstantial literary fluff, neither is it the whole of the discussion.
And while it might be true that you "ask them the sorts of questions that their co-religionists typically never ask", those questions are entirely dependent on what you invent, regardless of what any particular theist actually might have said. That is to say, your questions have to do with what you think. Such as your telling that when "a theist finds that I am asking for some
justification for those assumptions, they are often confused and stumped for an answer that makes any kind of logical sense": There is no guarantee that your question make any sense, whatsoever. To a certain degree, when you say things like, "The knee-jerk response I often see is that theists throw out random deepities, speaking
as if their descriptions are actually intelligible," it seems like saying so is actually the point of the stories you tell. Still, if some religious folk answer as if they are actually saying something deep and profound, some are so weak, others so deceptive, but also others who are in awe of questions you seem unable to perceive.
Think of it this way, if "nobody here seems much interested in discussing religion in terms of history or art, here", well, sure, I get what you mean, but you also understand the prospect that, for the most part, this community has long been somewhat hostile toward that sort of discourse. To a certain degree, the prospect that nobody seems much interested in discussing religion more any more deeply than superficial, even childish, political dispute might actually describe a problem. That is, of course, a longer discussion.
But here's the thing: If we observe the note about "the more fundamentalist sort (e.g. the typical American evangelical types)", well, right, because, like I said, the approximate shape of your godling in a shoebox is not some utter mystery, though if the approximate shape of your mystery is not so mysterious, the actual detail is. Your method of peppering people with demanding, judgmental questions constructed from your own fallacies tells us a little more about the shape and detail of your shoebox idol, but if you're worried about "pseudo-psychiatry", maybe try a more affirmative argument instead of leaving people to guess at the shape of what is absent. It's one thing to say "asking questions" is "how we find out what other people think"; and it is true that, "In the ideal case, they share their thoughts. You share back", but that reciprocity, that "
discussion of points", often falters when it's your turn to share, James. So while it's "not unreasonable … to
ask people what they believe and why they believe it", the prospect that your "approach is far fairer than … to assume that I already know what they believe" is an extraordinary proposition in light of the need for a companion thread when discussion exceeded your intended range in the one thread, or even
your manner of discussion↑ with Arfa Brane: "So does your God keep you breathing, or doesn't it? Or are you not sure, either way? You said you 'suppose' that it does. Were you not being entirely honest about that. Did you feel obliged to try to give God credit for something you're not sure he does, perhaps?" You are hardly being subtle about trying to box him in, so that he might answer for the sins and frailties of
your idol. But in our moment, at least you got to juxtapose yourself against "the 'other side'".
And while it's true, James, "We all make judgments about what other people say to us", inasmuch as that was simply a setup for your cheap moral scold, "You're hardly above the fray in that, so stop pretending you have the bird's eye perspective on everything", at least you get to feel better for saying so.
Think of it this way, James: Maybe you couldn't tell me anything about what you expected when you tried talking to God because it's not the role you're prepared to play in the only sort of discussion about God you know how to have. Perhaps that seems rough-hewn, but consider: You ask, they answer, you judge; if I'm asking and you're answering, well, maybe that just isn't how it's supposed to go. Compared to your focus on judging, we ought not be surprised the reciprocal sharing is where you falter.
The thing about questions of substance is that there really isn't much substance in your argument to measure. That is perhaps its most notable aspect. But look at your form: You ask, they answer, you judge; it's not necessarily your role in that discussion to provide much of anythying. Still, it makes a certain amount of sense:
I am in the fortunate position of having worked my way through those particular frailties and having coming out the other side better for it. I hope I can help some other people. Apart from that, I'm honestly interested in what makes people tick. It's actually important, because you and I have to live alongside people who are at times irrational, belligerent, dogmatic, unreasonable, discourteous, intolerant etc. It is important to understand why they are that way, and to try to help them get to a better place.
That, in addition to verging toward megalomania, is also extraordinarily dubious.
Nearly three years ago↗, I asked if you could not find a better method than reinforcing the faith of people you criticize for having faith, bcause picking fights with people you think you can take in a fight only reinforces, in their outlooks, that you're out to get them for the cheap satisfaction, which in turn only reinforces their own sense of their rightness. And, sure, these years later, there remains a question of how you can
still fail to figure this out. Like I reminded
last year↗, perhaps you might explain just how it is you think asking people to submit to your judgment per mocking, fallacious, self-satisfying criteria will do anything useful toward attending the harms they might bring to herself or others.
Sure, you've
worked you way through those particular frailties, which is in and of itself a very generic testimonial, but it is easy to doubt you are trying to help other people, because inasmuch as
it's actually important, because you and I have to live alongside people who are at times irrational, belligerent, dogmatic, unreasonable, discourteous, intolerant etc., the question remains why you would behave as you do. You're not
getting them to a better place, but encouraging them to harden and entrench against your judgment. In your pursuit of satisfcation, there comes a point at which you are, to the valence of religious believers your inquiries address, just another symbol, another atheist doing that belligerent, discourteous, dogmatically irrational and apparently uninformed attack thing atheists do.
No, really, think of what you
actually said↑: "Talking to God tends to be a one-way conversation, unless one is hallucinating, schizophrenic or similar";
i.e, unless one is psychiatrically disrupted.
