What does it mean to “act as if theism is true”? Are there any ways you’d expect an average member of the EA community to behave differently if they were to suddenly agree with you? I’ve never understood how to respond to arguments of the “something we could call ‘God’ must exist” variety, because I’ve never understood what those arguments want from me.
Some religions argue that gods are to be obeyed, or prayed to. I understand how those beliefs interact with action. But a god that issues no commands and desires no worship offers me no reason to consider it ever again, even if I do accept its existence.
Conditional on theism being true in the sense of this post, it seems especially likely that one of the particular religions that exist currently is most likely to be (approximately) true. If nothing else, you could figure out which religion is true, and then act based on what that religion asks for.
This quest to determine which religion is true sounds a lot like the genesis story of Mormonism. Joseph Smith, its founder, was deeply concerned about which religion had the truth. He prayed to know which religion to join. God the Father and Jesus Christ supposedly appeared to him and told him that none were true, but that he was chosen to restore the true religion.
I worry a lot about the danger of accepting that there are unassailable moral truths established by a supreme being. I’m a former Mormon, and the catalyst for my departure from the religion was my profound disagreement with its anti-LGBT teachings. I was taught to follow these teachings even though they seemed wrong to me because they came from God, and things that come from God are always good, whether we like them or not.
If we are to live like theists and accept that there are objective moral truths that exist because a supreme being said so, aren’t we in danger of deceiving ourselves and causing undo harm?
Not if the best thing to do is actually what the supreme being said, and not what you think is right, which is (a natural consequence of) the argument in this post.
(Tbc, I do not agree with the argument in the post.)
What does it mean to “act as if theism is true”? Are there any ways you’d expect an average member of the EA community to behave differently if they were to suddenly agree with you? I’ve never understood how to respond to arguments of the “something we could call ‘God’ must exist” variety, because I’ve never understood what those arguments want from me.
Some religions argue that gods are to be obeyed, or prayed to. I understand how those beliefs interact with action. But a god that issues no commands and desires no worship offers me no reason to consider it ever again, even if I do accept its existence.
Conditional on theism being true in the sense of this post, it seems especially likely that one of the particular religions that exist currently is most likely to be (approximately) true. If nothing else, you could figure out which religion is true, and then act based on what that religion asks for.
This quest to determine which religion is true sounds a lot like the genesis story of Mormonism. Joseph Smith, its founder, was deeply concerned about which religion had the truth. He prayed to know which religion to join. God the Father and Jesus Christ supposedly appeared to him and told him that none were true, but that he was chosen to restore the true religion.
I worry a lot about the danger of accepting that there are unassailable moral truths established by a supreme being. I’m a former Mormon, and the catalyst for my departure from the religion was my profound disagreement with its anti-LGBT teachings. I was taught to follow these teachings even though they seemed wrong to me because they came from God, and things that come from God are always good, whether we like them or not.
If we are to live like theists and accept that there are objective moral truths that exist because a supreme being said so, aren’t we in danger of deceiving ourselves and causing undo harm?
Not if the best thing to do is actually what the supreme being said, and not what you think is right, which is (a natural consequence of) the argument in this post.
(Tbc, I do not agree with the argument in the post.)