The Relevance of the Concept of God

[Magical Realist]

Turns out my notion of a concept of god being relevant to conscience is not unique to me. As it relates to ethics, it is called ideal observer theory.

Turns out "ideal observer theory" has nothing whatsoever to do with a postulated God or of any omniscient observer of human behavior much less of such forming the basis of moral conscience as you proposed. The "observer" in ideal observer theory plays the role of a potential sane, reasonable, normal, and calm HUMAN agent that can be expected to act similarly given the same situation. Here's the Wiki description of it:

"The main idea [of the ideal observer theory] is that ethical terms should be defined after the pattern of the following example: "x is better than y" means "If anyone were, in respect of x and y, fully informed and vividly imaginative, impartial, in a calm frame of mind and otherwise normal, he would prefer x to y."

 

[cole grey]

So nobody has anything to say about the scientific data which shows people acted more morally when there were pictures of eyes near a donation jar? It has also been shown that a mirror causes changes in behavior, creating a more honest reaction in subjects, by creating a psychological feeling of being watched.

I posted links. Nobody wants to dispute or explain away these facts? I guess I have to go out on a limb and say this seems to directly support the idea that the concept of an all-knowing god creates a feeling of being watched, therefore improving morality, before anyone will object.

 

[wynn]

So nobody has anything to say about the scientific data which shows people acted more morally when there were pictures of eyes near a donation jar? It has also been shown that a mirror causes changes in behavior, creating a more honest reaction in subjects, by creating a psychological feeling of being watched.

I posted links. Nobody wants to dispute or explain away these facts? I guess I have to go out on a limb and say this seems to directly support the idea that the concept of an all-knowing god creates a feeling of being watched, therefore improving morality, before anyone will object.

Cultural history supports this:

The all-seeing eye, the Buddhist rendition:

The Eye of Providence

 

[wynn]

For your concept of god to have any influence on the development of conscience, your observer, defined characteristically as a god, would need to have a discernible moral disposition. And to conform to your placebo reference, it would also have to be imagined as real.

The OP is analyzing the phenomenon in abstract, general terms.

If we look at the effect that belief in God has on believers from various theistic religions, it is of the same kind (namely, a heightened sense of morality, a development of conscience), even though those theistic religions differ in what in particular they propose to be true about God and us and what in particular they deem moral.

 

[Capracus]

If we look at the effect that belief in God has on believers from various theistic religions, it is of the same kind (namely, a heightened sense of morality, a development of conscience), even though those theistic religions differ in what in particular they propose to be true about God and us and what in particular they deem moral.

As long as human ignorance lends credence to the notion that human existence is subject to the influence of irrational imagined processes, then such effects will continue. Some form of morality and conscience will develop regardless of the conceptual exposure, be it derived through prevarication or not.

 

[wynn]

As long as human ignorance lends credence to the notion that human existence is subject to the influence of irrational imagined processes, then such effects will

What you describe is a typical Freudian proposition - humans seeing themselves as being at the mercy of things they don't know.


So what is the alternative?

 

[Capracus]

Accept the fact that there will always be things we can't know, and use reason to deal with the things we can.

 

[wynn]

Accept the fact that there will always be things we can't know, and use reason to deal with the things we can.

Which is what humans have been doing all along anyway.

The crux of the matter is that the things that seem to hold most interest for us are often enough also things that we aren't certain about. Notably, all the Big Questions are like this.

The romantic ideal of being okay with not knowing is actionable enough with things that are trivial to us, but for the important things in life, we just can't be okay with not knowing, even as we don't know for sure about them.

 

[Yazata]

I see that discussion has returned to the supposed moral effects of imagined universal observers. (This thread is like a lazy slowly-moving river.) So I'm going to repeat some remarks that I made earlier in the thread when we were discussing the idea the first time:

And why doesn't the monotheists' theory of a universal witness suffer from precisely that same shortcoming? [The implication that what makes unethical actions wrong is getting caught.] It just seems to be adding the additional assertion that wrongdoers will always get caught. It doesn't seem to be addressing the problem of developing conscience. Conscience after all is what typically makes us feel that particular sorts of acts are wrong even when nobody else can see us doing them.

Ideally, our good behavior should arise from our own deepest motivations, not from our fear of being seen, caught and punished if we behave as we truly and secretly want to behave.

 

[Yazata]

Maybe you should read my whole post, and the OP while you are at it. But even in just that post, I make a clear distinction between religion and the concept of god. All human institutions, including churches and secular ones, are inadequate for the purpose of developing conscience.

There really is no distinction between the concept of god and religion.

I agree with Capracus there. Belief in 'God' is a prototypically religious belief. The concept 'God', in the Euro-American context at least, arose within and was strongly shaped by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. It's hard to imagine what content the English-language word might have, or whether it would even exist in its portentious capitalized form, if that Judeo-Christian tradition had never existed. In other words, the concept 'God' is a cultural artifact, relative to a particular historical tradition.

That suggests that a hypothetical 'religionless' concept of 'God' is probably impossible.

If there were no distinction then a Buddhist would necessarily be a theist, even though it is a nontheistic religion.

You can debate this further with Yazata

No,no,no,no,no. I argued against the idea that the scope of 'religion' is identical with the scope of 'theism'. There are non-theistic religions out there. That doesn't imply that non-religious theism is possible. I don't believe that it is.

Imagine nesting Venn diagrams. 'Religion' is a big circle. 'Theism' is a smaller circle inside the larger circle, a sub-set of the larger set. Theism is a particular variety of religious belief. It's entirely possible to be very religious without being any sort of theist. (Imagine a Zen monk.) But it's impossible to be a theist without possessing some kind of religious belief, because by definition theism is a particular variety of religious belief.

 

[wynn]

I see that discussion has returned to the supposed moral effects of imagined universal observers.

For a theist, that universal observer is not merely imagined.

From the atheist's perspective, the theist's belief in God may indeed be nothing but fantasy, but the theist does not experience his own belief as mere fantasy.

But to propose that the atheist's perspective is the neutral arbiter in these matters - this is nothing short of blatant bias and intellectual imperialism.

And why doesn't the monotheists' theory of a universal witness suffer from precisely that same shortcoming? [The implication that what makes unethical actions wrong is getting caught.] It just seems to be adding the additional assertion that wrongdoers will always get caught. It doesn't seem to be addressing the problem of developing conscience. Conscience after all is what typically makes us feel that particular sorts of acts are wrong even when nobody else can see us doing them.

In the case of the monotheistic God, God simply sees everything, there is no escaping from God, and since God is also the judge, every wrongdoing will be judged.

The idea that "Conscience after all is what typically makes us feel that particular sorts of acts are wrong even when nobody else can see us doing them" does not apply in a monotheistic universe, because in such a universe, it is not possible to ever not be seen to begin with.

Ideally, our good behavior should arise from our own deepest motivations, not from our fear of being seen, caught and punished if we behave as we truly and secretly want to behave.

Again, this is an entirely secular atheist viewpoint that does not apply in a monotheistic universe. In a monotheistic universe, one is always seen, there is no way around that.
Moreover, in the monotheistic universe our "deepest motivations" have been given to us by God, they do not exist somehow separately from God.

 

[wynn]

I agree with Capracus there. Belief in 'God' is a prototypically religious belief. The concept 'God', in the Euro-American context at least, arose within and was strongly shaped by the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. It's hard to imagine what content the English-language word might have, or whether it would even exist in its portentious capitalized form, if that Judeo-Christian tradition had never existed. In other words, the concept 'God' is a cultural artifact, relative to a particular historical tradition.

That suggests that a hypothetical 'religionless' concept of 'God' is probably impossible.

Again:

The OP is analyzing the phenomenon in abstract, general terms.

If we look at the effect that belief in God has on believers from various theistic religions, it is of the same kind (namely, a heightened sense of morality, a development of conscience), even though those theistic religions differ in what in particular they propose to be true about God and us and what in particular they deem moral.

 

[Yazata]

For a theist, that universal observer is not merely imagined.

I think that it is, but I do agree with you that the theist doesn't believe that it is.

But having said that, Syne's very first post in this thread began with these words:

I will begin by assuming god does not exist and that we are merely examining the concept of god.

He's repeated that in numerous posts since (#16, #56...). So your argument there would seem to be with Syne, not with me.

The idea that "Conscience after all is what typically makes us feel that particular sorts of acts are wrong even when nobody else can see us doing them" does not apply in a monotheistic universe, because in such a universe, it is not possible to ever not be seen to begin with.

Again, your argument seems to be with Syne. He's been insisting repeatedly that non-theists have a stunted, childlike and inferior understanding of conscience. (Posts 19, 23, 26,56...)

But you seem to be arguing precisely the reverse, that for theists, conscience is nothing more than fear of getting caught. I'm not sure that I'd even call that 'conscience'. It looks to me like social-control for people who otherwise lack a conscience.

I don't accept that. My own experience is that many theists have consciences that are far more developed than a child's fear of his/her parents finding out. Things like fairness, empathy and compassion factor in. There's an almost Buddhist-like concern for right-motivation. Those kind of considerations continue to apply whether or not people believe that they are being watched.

Moreover, in the monotheistic universe our "deepest motivations" have been given to us by God, they do not exist somehow separately from God.

Wherever they're thought to come from, they're important and central to the whole 'conscience' deal. Conscience isn't just belief in an all-seeing judge (a child's stern father up in the sky) that hopefully will deter people from doing all of the evil things that they would privately really like to do. Conscience is about not desiring to do evil things in the first place.

 

[Franklin]

I haven't read through this long thread, but the question in the initial post was discussed in detail in the book "Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society" by David Sloan Wilson (which I cannot link to for another 10 posts).

 

[wynn]

I think that it is, but I do agree with you that the theist doesn't believe that it is.

But having said that, Syne's very first post in this thread began with these words:

He's repeated that in numerous posts since (#16, #56...). So your argument there would seem to be with Syne, not with me.

Uh. We can discuss a topic in abstract, general terms, can we not?

He's been insisting repeatedly that non-theists have a stunted, childlike and inferior understanding of conscience. (Posts 19, 23, 26,56...)

And this really riles you up, doesn't it?


Papanca.

But you seem to be arguing precisely the reverse, that for theists, conscience is nothing more than fear of getting caught.

That's your interpretation, coming from the position of assuming that a secular, non-theistic outlook is the right one, the actual one, the true one - and that it applies even for theists.

I'm not sure that I'd even call that 'conscience'. It looks to me like social-control for people who otherwise lack a conscience.

That's because you refuse to try to place yourself in the shoes of a theist or at least the shoes of someone trying to understand a theist from a theist's perspective.

Conscience is about not desiring to do evil things in the first place.

And in the monotheistic conception, this is granted by God.

 

[wynn]

But you seem to be arguing precisely the reverse, that for theists, conscience is nothing more than fear of getting caught. I'm not sure that I'd even call that 'conscience'. It looks to me like social-control for people who otherwise lack a conscience.

I don't accept that. My own experience is that many theists have consciences that are far more developed than a child's fear of his/her parents finding out. Things like fairness, empathy and compassion factor in. There's an almost Buddhist-like concern for right-motivation. Those kind of considerations continue to apply whether or not people believe that they are being watched.

Wherever they're thought to come from, they're important and central to the whole 'conscience' deal. Conscience isn't just belief in an all-seeing judge (a child's stern father up in the sky) that hopefully will deter people from doing all of the evil things that they would privately really like to do. Conscience is about not desiring to do evil things in the first place.

Do you also take issue with the Buddhist or Hindu (with some further qualifiers) concepts of karma?

Karma operates 24/7 - karma is watching people 24/7. Typically, members of those religions act out of both a fear of karmic repercussions and hope for karmic rewards.

(Fairness, empathy and compassion are still matters of karma.)

Even if you take the Mahayanist bodhisattva or bodhisattva aspirant, they're still acting out of a concern for karma.


Of course, karma being proposed as an impersonal process may make it more acceptable to some people, as opposed to the idea of God himself doing all the punishing and rewarding.

 

[cole grey]

I see that discussion has returned to the supposed moral effects of imagined universal observers. (This thread is like a lazy slowly-moving river.) So I'm going to repeat some remarks that I made earlier in the thread when we were discussing the idea the first time:

And why doesn't the monotheists' theory of a universal witness suffer from precisely that same shortcoming? [The implication that what makes unethical actions wrong is getting caught.] It just seems to be adding the additional assertion that wrongdoers will always get caught. It doesn't seem to be addressing the problem of developing conscience. Conscience after all is what typically makes us feel that particular sorts of acts are wrong even when nobody else can see us doing them.
Ideally, our good behavior should arise from our own deepest motivations, not from our fear of being seen, caught and punished if we behave as we truly and secretly want to behave.

this relates to the divide between consequentialism and deontology. What if people don't feel aware they are being watched (which is what the studies I mentioned represent.) Their behavior is basically improved subconsciously, so THEN is it more moral, since they don't know they are being watched but act more morally? essentially thinking they are doing the right thing only because they are such good people, because obviously a free standing mirror in a room does not mean someone is watching you, it is just your reflection. haha this just gets way too complicated because there are probably MANY other factors that go into our "personal morality", factors we don't even necessarily know are affecting us.
and what if being watched results in better consequences, even if it doesn't result in better intentions and worse behavior? It is better. Or is it worse? Or is it better? haha

 

[wynn]

this relates to the divide between consequentialism and deontology. What if people don't feel aware they are being watched (which is what the studies I mentioned represent.) Their behavior is basically improved subconsciously, so THEN is it more moral, since they don't know they are being watched but act more morally? essentially thinking they are doing the right thing only because they are such good people, because obviously a free standing mirror in a room does not mean someone is watching you, it is just your reflection. haha this just gets way too complicated because there are probably MANY other factors that go into our "personal morality", factors we don't even necessarily know are affecting us.
and what if being watched results in better consequences, even if it doesn't result in better intentions and worse behavior? It is better. Or is it worse? Or is it better? haha

The Freudian hypothesis of the alter ego is about internalizing this sense of being watched, to the point where one isn't aware of it, but acts with consideration of it. Yazata has to defeat this hypothesis if the point he is making is to stand.

And it's not like being watched is somehow lowly, directed solely in terms of rewards and punishments - in contrast imagine being watched by someone who really wants the best for you. Hence the notion of divine providence - God is there, watching you, for your own benefit, not just "out to get you."

 

[Syne]

And to answer Capracus, Q, Balerion, and anyone else doubting the independence of this notion from religion, this theory is opposed to divine command theory.

It cannot be made any more clear than that. Even some of the language used to describe ideal observer theory is identical to my own (even though I was not previously aware of this theory).

The ideal observer theory is only meant to be a basis for the notion that all moral stances could be made consistent with a standard derived from a hypothetical omniscient, rational and impartial human observer.

Wait...do you know any "omniscient....human observer"?! Nowhere in the link I gave was the ideal observer defined as human, and omniscience is most commonly a trait attributed to a god.

The theory has no value in assessing moral value to any real condition, since the resultant standard of such an observer can never be realized. The role of such an observer is not one of an influential overseer as conceived in your concept of god.

Again, I have been talking about conscience, not morals (which are the social aspect and regulation informed by conscience). And how many time do I have to tell you that my concept of god has nothing to do with any "influential overseer"? That is you conflating the abstract concept with religion again.

Only the concept of god provides a postulated observer whereby individuals can further develop an objective view of themselves. A postulated view that does not have the shortcoming inherent in all other human institutions that lead people to believe that something is only wrong if you get caught.

Just like a doctor's delivery of a placebo can alter its efficacy, it would seem that belief in the concept of god (or an equivalent ever-watching observer) might effect its ability to strengthen conscience.

For your concept of god to have any influence on the development of conscience, your observer, defined characteristically as a god, would need to have a discernible moral disposition. And to conform to your placebo reference, it would also have to be imagined as real.

No influence, because assumed to not exist. But yes, for a child to grasp the concept, it would be necessary for them to believe it possible, at least until they have developed the ability to sufficiently think in the abstract. The development of conscience is not one of external influence, nor specific moral disposition. It is a matter of internalizing the ideal observer pattern in one's own evaluations.

 

[Syne]

Turns out my notion of a concept of god being relevant to conscience is not unique to me. As it relates to ethics, it is called ideal observer theory.

Turns out "ideal observer theory" has nothing whatsoever to do with a postulated God or of any omniscient observer of human behavior much less of such forming the basis of moral conscience as you proposed. The "observer" in ideal observer theory plays the role of a potential sane, reasonable, normal, and calm HUMAN agent that can be expected to act similarly given the same situation. Here's the Wiki description of it:

"The main idea [of the ideal observer theory] is that ethical terms should be defined after the pattern of the following example: "x is better than y" means "If anyone were, in respect of x and y, fully informed and vividly imaginative, impartial, in a calm frame of mind and otherwise normal, he would prefer x to y."

You conveniently left out "omniscient", which is the "fully informed" bit of that quote. No human is ideally and fully informed.