Delusions in a Godless Universe

I don't think this topic can be rationally discussed without first defining what one's definition of God is. For example - assume at some point in the future we find, and travel to, a planet with some primitive beings - like humans say 10,000 years ago. Those beings would view you as a God.

My definition is a bit higher bar. I would say that an entity that has the ability to - through force of will - control energy - could be said to be a God - or at least have Godlike powers.

When I say "control energy" what I mean is the ability to control energy outside of its physical body. Humans have the above ability but it is constrained to our own bodies - and fairly limited. If we could do things like move objects through force of will - that would be more "God like".

 

Fair enough.

In order for the universe to be, 'godless', we need a definition. I'll go with the most probable definition common to man.. not just based on relative perceptions.

1. Creator of the universe, life, and everything.
2. Able to embed a moral code in humanity.
3. Able to reward/punish with heaven/hell
4. Able to impart a sense of meaning, purpose, or destiny in humanity.

IOW, most of the list, in the OP. If there is a God, He could do such things,
BUT... if there is no such God, the belief in these things can only be delusional.

 

I don't agree with the "creator of the universe" part of your definition. It assumes that nothing existed prior to the creation of the universe - sans God - which would then be the actual universe. Further it discounts the possibility that God "IS" the universe.

 

The simple dichotomy that this thread assumes is:
God
No God

Atheistic naturalism, vs a Creator. That is the heart and soul () of all the philosophical flame wars in this forum. All debates and disputes over the nature of the universe, CENTER on this God;No God dichotomy.

Therefore, to keep the arguments and the implications of each worldview/assumption current, the typical God;No God dichotomy should be a given.

Deflecting with an uninvolved God, or a created universe, but not God, or a mystical, 'all is dream!' absurdism perspective only muddies the issue.

You can certainly define God however you want. But but the topic here is

'delusions in a godless universe'

Make your own list, edit mine, but provide reasoning 'why?' or 'why not?' anything is or is not a delusion, in a godless universe.

 

A simple false dichotomy It leaves out the possibility that the universe is God. This is a position that both theists and atheists can hold.

 

I had another post where I replied to the opening post. This one was replying to the preaching being spit at me.

I'm also not a progressive at all.

I don't think those things are delusions. Only if they cross a boundry of people hearing and seeing things. I know lots of other atheists like to overuse the word delusional, but I think that to use it the way most online atheists use it, is not accurate to the meaning of the word. I
It probably stems from that book "The God Delusion" so it became popular to call everything delusional.

Believing in God or the afterlife isn't delusional, its simply wrong.

 

I actually think the more important question is about the afterlife. People always talk about God, but why is the existence of God neccesarily tied to the existence of an afterlife? I don't see any particular philosophical reason it would be. So if 'God is the universe' and you somehow get atheists and theists to agree on that, but there is no afterlife then it really doesn't matter.

Thats the important question, more important for how one should live ones life than the existence of God or not.

 

What Makes you think if one doesn’t believe in God we live in a meaningless universe? You ask How can an individual have meaning beyond survival without believing in the invisible man in the sky? I guess it would be the same way when children find out there is no Santa Claus

 

I believe that it is necessary for some people to believe in the supernatural

 

For the most part, you're just enumerating some of your religion - quite a bit as if a longer list is evidence of truth.

4. This idea of an absolute moral code is questionable. There are certainly questions of moral behavior that aren't answered with uniform acceptance, and that is surely evidence of lack of an absolute code.

6. This is a characteristic of being human.

7. This one isn't unique to religion, either.

9. This is close to a rewording of 4. Among humans, there isn't any absolute good or absolute bad in any way that is real and helpful. The Bible says humans have the capacity for good even though we're all inherently evil. And, there are decisions where wise men have difficulty in determining what is "good" v. "bad". I think all you did was name the two ends of a continuum.

The rest are purely your religion. I'm fine with you believing there are angels. If it helps you to be seeing a god as the provider of eternal life (thus making earthly toil less of a deal) or if it's helpful in promoting ethical behavior to have the threat of hell, that's OK too.

 

None of those are delusions as defined by psychology/psychiatry, so no, they cannot "only be called 'delusions'".

 

And right there we see the goalpost movement rather than you just admitting your argument is flawed.

 

Maybe. Could you elaborate a little.

I don't think I would want the whole world to be Atheists like me. Having everyone have the same ideas is ..... boring and unhealthy. People who think the world would be better off if everyone believed like themselves, whether thats Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Liberal or Conservative are just missing out on the beauty of diversity, and that we expand our collective knowlege as a species by having more ideas, not by having the same ones.

 

Creatures who willingly incline their hearts twoards their Creator are the crown jewels of His creation, so obviously they are not, from His perspective, throwaway items; so just as the crowning achievement of a master builder will be built so as to survive his great great grandchildren, we should not be surprised that God made the human soul to live forever.

In a Godless universe, there are no important questions, and it doesn't matter how you live your "life".

 

Your example doesnt make any sense. If humans are the crow jewels of creation, he sucks at creation. That is just self evidently obviously not true.

Your second part doesnt make any sense either. Gods existence isn't tied to the importance of philosophical questions. Why would you think that?

 

I see little difference between 'wrong!', and 'delusion!', when it comes to something as significant to the human animal as this.

There is a WORLD of differences, in the implications and conclusions about our lives, depending on which worldview you assume.

The list in the OP are distinct possibilities, in a universe with God, but they are delusions in a godless one.

Belief in something as important and consequential as this can only be called a delusion, if some fantastic, imaginary belief is premised.

The discomfort of the word is not the issue, here. It may be possible to tone it down, and find a more PC word to soft sell the concept, but in reality, believing in false fantasies is clearly delusional.

 

I do not see how one can exclude God, but believe in an afterlife, soul, and spiritual dimensions. The material, naturalistic view is that the visible, material is all there is. Everything else is imaginary (or delusional!). If one believes in a spirit world, with souls, angels, and a metaphysical reality, why not include God? What necessity is there for excluding Him?

In a godless universe, why would, 'more important for how one should live ones life'.. mean anything? There is no absolute morality, but expediency and preference. There is no purpose, just survival. What possible significance could 'how one should live ones life', have? That is another delusion, in a godless universe. You live. You die. Nothing matters. You could arrange world peace, or destroy the planet in a nuclear holocaust, and the universe spins on, indifferent to anything we have said or done.

'How we live our lives', is meaningless, in a godless universe. We just live, or not.

 

How can there be any 'a priori' meaning, in a meaningless universe? That is delusional, like children believing in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny.

What possible significance can your life (or anyone's) have, in a meaningless, random accident in the infinite cosmos?

Belief in some personal 'significance!' and 'meaning!' is a human fantasy, to soften the hard reality of nothingness and emptiness in a godless universe.

People invent God for that reason, as they do 'meaning!', in a godless universe.

 

..everybody gotta believe something.. whatever floats your boat.

Everyone has to do their own believing, and their own dying.

 

I don't think you read or understood the OP, at all..

..not surprising, given our past history..

 

You mean that delusions and fantastic beliefs should be encouraged? Why?

Wouldn't it be better for people to face the TRUTH, about their existence, rather than waste their lives believing in and following a delusion?

How sad and pathetic, to obsess over an imaginary fantasy, denying our desires, living a lie..

REALITY, not fantastic imagination, is a better path. Why should delusions and lies control us?

 

It is the only logical conclusion.

How can there be any 'meaning! Purpose!', in a godless universe? There is only personal preference.. an arbitrary choosing of something to do, while waiting to die.

You can choose, 'helping others!', and someone else can choose, 'exploiting others!', and neither matter, to the universe. The exploiter will likely spread his genes more, and promote that trait to the species, but neither matters, to the infinite universe.

 

This again is false. Psychiatry and psychology define delusions and none of them would be delusions. Simply being wrong about something or believing something that is not factually accurate does not make that belief a delusion.

 

Right.
Delusional humans defining 'delusion!' To exclude themselves from the label.

I prefer to follow the reasoning, than hang on the beliefs of 'experts!'

What is believing in an imaginary fantasy, if not a delusion? Merely defining it as 'not a delusion!' does not make it so. Do 'deluded' people know they are deluded? Would that not make them 'aware', if they saw through their delusions?

Just like stupid is not aware of itself, so is delusion.

 

So we are instead to use the definition of "delusion" that you have arbitrarily invented? Why should anyone go along with your definition?