But maybe even hardline atheists, like my own past self, might find something useful in the idea that The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Don’t worry, you don’t have to believe in a ‘big man in the sky’. You don’t have to anthropomorphize anything. But consider respecting, or at least acknowledging, that mass of law and order, those universal demands whose source we don’t entirely understand.
Really echoes this part of my worldview I've been putting into words over the past few years. I've usually said, "Look, I don't think there's God [meaning an anthropomorphized creator entity]. But I do think there's God [a coherent set of things (ways of living and being) that are good, fundamentally]."
But I really like the way you've stuck with making a claim that's even weaker in some sense and yet also much more thorough: "There is God [a coherent set of laws/principles that govern the universe--including those that govern the creation, functioning, and maintenance of a society that supports the flourishing of its members, and the behaviors/general way of living that contribute to such a society]."
The paraphrase is good. (There are obv many conceptions of God, and I don't think I've catalogued even the most important ones, but the existence of this set of governing laws and principles, whatever you want to call them, is definitely something I can get behind.)
I enjoyed this post, comparing God with the rules of the universe is an intriguing concept! But isn't it sort of attacking a strawman? Does anybody completely deny ethics or virtue (half-genuine question, I know plenty of atheists but no hardcore anarcho-capitalists)?
I think a hardline atheist is very likely to agree that no Big Man in the Sky is telling them not to inject heroin, but that it would be a bad idea regardless to inject heroin. In general I'm not sure anybody disagrees with
> Because whether or not these specific things are true, but they suggest a type of argument. The argument type says that X is not recommended because X disrupts or prevents a good social order by means Y.
But where they might disagree is the epistemic standard required to show that X causes Y. I think rejecting religious tradition or dogma as proof for this type of statement is a defensible idea, even if you think some of these laws are difficult or impossible to comprehend rationally. (Because why would religion be a better way to comprehend them?)
Or are you indeed making the stronger claim that religious traditions, even though they might tend to anthropomorphize God a little too much, still have information / wisdom about it?
I'd say that, e.g. Dawkins probably will agree with almost everything here (Harris' definitely will), and say that this perspective is not that useful?
Also tangent: the type of anti-masturbation content I have been exposed to (Chinese ones, not Christian ones) just flat out claims false physical effects: sperm escaping causes a man to lose his essence and leads to impotency, etc. My impression has been that this is The vast majority of these things everywhere?
Oh man, I loved this so much. In particular:
But maybe even hardline atheists, like my own past self, might find something useful in the idea that The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Don’t worry, you don’t have to believe in a ‘big man in the sky’. You don’t have to anthropomorphize anything. But consider respecting, or at least acknowledging, that mass of law and order, those universal demands whose source we don’t entirely understand.
Really echoes this part of my worldview I've been putting into words over the past few years. I've usually said, "Look, I don't think there's God [meaning an anthropomorphized creator entity]. But I do think there's God [a coherent set of things (ways of living and being) that are good, fundamentally]."
But I really like the way you've stuck with making a claim that's even weaker in some sense and yet also much more thorough: "There is God [a coherent set of laws/principles that govern the universe--including those that govern the creation, functioning, and maintenance of a society that supports the flourishing of its members, and the behaviors/general way of living that contribute to such a society]."
Thanks for writing and sharing!
ps, let me know if my paraphrase misses anything
Thanks for the feedback, glad you liked it!
The paraphrase is good. (There are obv many conceptions of God, and I don't think I've catalogued even the most important ones, but the existence of this set of governing laws and principles, whatever you want to call them, is definitely something I can get behind.)
I enjoyed this post, comparing God with the rules of the universe is an intriguing concept! But isn't it sort of attacking a strawman? Does anybody completely deny ethics or virtue (half-genuine question, I know plenty of atheists but no hardcore anarcho-capitalists)?
I think a hardline atheist is very likely to agree that no Big Man in the Sky is telling them not to inject heroin, but that it would be a bad idea regardless to inject heroin. In general I'm not sure anybody disagrees with
> Because whether or not these specific things are true, but they suggest a type of argument. The argument type says that X is not recommended because X disrupts or prevents a good social order by means Y.
But where they might disagree is the epistemic standard required to show that X causes Y. I think rejecting religious tradition or dogma as proof for this type of statement is a defensible idea, even if you think some of these laws are difficult or impossible to comprehend rationally. (Because why would religion be a better way to comprehend them?)
Or are you indeed making the stronger claim that religious traditions, even though they might tend to anthropomorphize God a little too much, still have information / wisdom about it?
Isn't this Sam Harris' moral landscape...?
I'd say that, e.g. Dawkins probably will agree with almost everything here (Harris' definitely will), and say that this perspective is not that useful?
Also tangent: the type of anti-masturbation content I have been exposed to (Chinese ones, not Christian ones) just flat out claims false physical effects: sperm escaping causes a man to lose his essence and leads to impotency, etc. My impression has been that this is The vast majority of these things everywhere?