is 'believing (against the evidence) that God is good' is a very good psychological protection mechanism from despair?

[Wootah]

Hi all,

It occurred to me that when everything is going badly in life that 'believing (against the evidence) that God is good' is a very good psychological protection mechanism from despair and nihilism.

Without believing in a good God, there is really no reason to believe that life should not be the way it is.

Does anyone want to give some reasons for or against this?

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #47]

Also there is this; aside Moral instructions in the Bible, suppose it was God imprinting the innate morals in our minds ("On our hearts" as Paul has it) as with a lot of this basic stuff ascribed to a Cosmic Mind, which god are we talking about? Christians so often seem to think that there is only ever one possible god and religion to credit for this stuff.

This process can be explain sufficiently in that Christianity is a culture and all culture tends toward tweaking the storyline to obtain a favorable image of said culture.
This is along the lines of how [in political terms] the victorious culture indulging in warfare will write the history to make themselves look shiny and the defeated culture to look inferior, in comparison.

Psychologically, it is a common enough human trick, regardless of whether the culture is based in theism or non-theism. Arguably dishonest and ultimately futile against the truth of objective reality as experienced subjectively.

"Some days there won't be a song in your heart. Sing anyways."

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah in post #46]

I find when people ask obvious questions, they know they have lost an argument.
A cursory examination into synthetic vs natural gemstones would answer the question without being argumentative.

Your premise that life is more valuable WITH a creator is the fallacy in question.
Creators make things with purpose. What if we were created as custodians of the Earth, and instead introduced the Holocene Extinction?
What if our purpose is the Holocene Extinction?
If the creator made us to be bad, then all this talk about goodness is preposterous.

All I can see is that the assumption that we have purpose because of a creator is a result of brainwashing, and is a variation of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of mine.

I don't recall saying life is more valuable with a creator. All I am arguing is that it seems good to acknowledge the good.

Saying someone is brainwashed is very similar to losing an argument by calling someone a nazi.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #49]

1) Written on our heart
Thanks for that. I was thinking of the heart of stone to a heart of flesh verses. Yes, morality is objective and the Bible says we all know enough morality to know we are in the wrong.

2) The New covenant/Jesus made all things new
Jesus said he did not come to replace or change the law. He quotes the OT continuously and no one can even understand why Jesus came without understanding the OT. He also says I and the Father are one. So I am pretty sure Jesus agrees with the OT. Please send the Christians you encounter of the kind you mention to me.

3) Slavery
My view is that we are all slaves: to nature, to our bodies, to physics, to other peoples, to our families. It is endless and pretending to not be a slave is illusory. If we recognise that then we can better choose what to be a slave to. As a Christian, I claim to be a slave to Christ and so as my master washed the feet of his disciples then I know what standard God expects of me as his Slave. No slave is greater than his master. It's when we all become slaves of each other, loving God and loving others as we love ourselves, that we will all be most free.

[Willum]

[Replying to Wootah in post #52]

I don't recall saying life is more valuable with a creator. All I am arguing is that it seems good to acknowledge the good.

Saying someone is brainwashed is very similar to losing an argument by calling someone a nazi.

Sorry if I am not playing fair.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #49]

1) Written on our heart
Thanks for that. I was thinking of the heart of stone to a heart of flesh verses. Yes, morality is objective and the Bible says we all know enough morality to know we are in the wrong.

2) The New covenant/Jesus made all things new
Jesus said he did not come to replace or change the law. He quotes the OT continuously and no one can even understand why Jesus came without understanding the OT. He also says I and the Father are one. So I am pretty sure Jesus agrees with the OT. Please send the Christians you encounter of the kind you mention to me.

3) Slavery
My view is that we are all slaves: to nature, to our bodies, to physics, to other peoples, to our families. It is endless and pretending to not be a slave is illusory. If we recognise that then we can better choose what to be a slave to. As a Christian, I claim to be a slave to Christ and so as my master washed the feet of his disciples then I know what standard God expects of me as his Slave. No slave is greater than his master. It's when we all become slaves of each other, loving God and loving others as we love ourselves, that we will all be most free.

We seem to be duplicating our work. Elsewhere I pointed out that chattel slavery is not the same as being constrained by our condition and environment. Your choice is to take advantage of the (supposed) benefits offered by Christianity - eternal life in exchange for foot washing. That's your choice; a slave had their freedom of choice taken away. If you do not comprehend the difference I cannot take you seriously. That you seem to be playing with words (equivocation fallacy) confirms my suspicion.

As to the OT, my explanation is that Jesus said none of the things ascribed to him in the Gospels and they are the polemics of Greek (they could only read the Septuagint) Pauline Christians whose agenda was dismissing the Mosaic Law as anything to observe or practice, while still leaving it unchanged but unused. I have pointed out elsewhere that the examples of Sabbath breaking (particularly the crummy argument from David and the Shewbread) ought to have led to some pilpul discussion, but the teachers of the Law never get to utter a word. This is one -sided propaganda where the Pharisee side is never put just as Creationist propagandists never put the skeptic arguments.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #55]

Anyway - what did you want to say on the topic? I think having a belief (possibly irrational?) 'that God is good' is a good idea psychologically.

[Willum]

[Replying to Wootah in post #42]

Woot said:

Well you can start a thread on what you see as evidence of God not being good and we can discuss that? What is a specific example of that (in another thread)?

Here you go.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39346&sid=81ec56a38 ... 6979090b3b

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #55]

Anyway - what did you want to say on the topic? I think having a belief (possibly irrational?) 'that God is good' is a good idea psychologically.

I think that assuming assuming something as so without or before any decent evidence for it and even in despite of evidence that it isn't so is a terrible idea. One of the biggest components of the Big Lie is that 'Faith is Good'. It isn't. It leads to ossified and blinkered thinking, resistance to compelling contrary evidence and makes decent persons dishonest.

Following the evidence, being willing to change the mind in the face of good evidence, and not stubbornly denying everything and resorting to dishonest tactics rather than admit to being wrong, is the worst kind of thinking, though it is probably the more common.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #55]

Anyway - what did you want to say on the topic? I think having a belief (possibly irrational?) 'that God is good' is a good idea psychologically.

I think that assuming assuming something as so without or before any decent evidence for it and even in despite of evidence that it isn't so is a terrible idea. One of the biggest components of the Big Lie is that 'Faith is Good'. It isn't. It leads to ossified and blinkered thinking, resistance to compelling contrary evidence and makes decent persons dishonest.

Following the evidence, being willing to change the mind in the face of good evidence, and not stubbornly denying everything and resorting to dishonest tactics rather than admit to being wrong, is the worst kind of thinking, though it is probably the more common.

I think we all have prepositions. Some people are aware of theirs.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Wootah in post #59]

If we aren't, the Other Side will quickly point them out to us. The Rational thing is to consider whether they are good points and may require rethinking. That's how rationality works and is (of course) why science is 'always changing its' mind'. It is Dogmatic thinking that insists that it cannot be wrong and will not change no matter the evidence. Though in actual fact it changes with glacial sluggishness so as not to be so left behind that it becomes a laughing stock. Mind, religion can do a good job of making absurdity accepted by grabbing political authority. Let us all be beware.