Does intuition favor God's existence?

[midlifeaspie]

I think he is an Ex Christian. I might be wrong.

He answered a few pages back:

How is one an agnostic diest?

Easy.

I don't know if the Creator exists or not => agnostic.

Yet, I still believe in an impersonal Creator => deism.

I have no idea what that means, but it is an answer.

He doesn't know if a Creator exists, but he believes in an impersonal creator.  My brain throws up error messages when I read that, but it does the same for all religion

[Phallacy]

Cavalera is a hardcore Christian for all I care. Just look at how much he discusses this shit.

[eris]

I only have superficial knowledge of deism. I was under the impression that that is the belief that there is an "unpersonal creator", so to speak, and it wound the universe up and left it to create itself. This personal creator either doesnt care about us anymore,  or is dead.

[midlifeaspie]

I only have superficial knowledge of deism. I was under the impression that that is the belief that there is an "unpersonal creator", so to speak, and it wound the universe up and left it to create itself. This personal creator either doesnt care about us anymore,  or is dead.

But in order to believe either, you first have to actually believe in a creator, right?

[odeon]

I found this study interesting:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx

Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.

I can think of several problems with the study. One is that the cultural background is skewed--the subjects are all American and a larger part is women. The researchers themselves show bias in their approach--note, for example, the capitalisation of the word "god" or how they choose to explain their study. The small number of subjects is not enough to draw any real conclusions.

Etc.

If you want an independent study, find a group of *neutral* subjects.

Fine. I do think they should keep verifying this through repetitive methods and in other countries.

The capitalisation of God argument is a poor one in my opinion, though. Because even atheists are used to referring to the concept of the Creator as God (capital G).

They are less likely to do so, but my main point is that if you choose to do that in a study related to god, it either shows bias or ignorance. Both undermine the study itself.

Sounds like false dichotomy to me.

If it's related to the concept of the hypothesized Creator of all, then I don't see why it shouldn't be God with a capital G even in a professional psychology study. It's really a universally arbitrary thing at the end: God for the Creator and/or the Supreme Being and god(s) for the minor ones (irrelevant to this topic).

Because if you've done the same in your forms, you've already taken a stance. Because it shows where you come from. *Especially* in this sort of thing you should try to be careful to remain neutral.

Your conditions are just your own anyway.

Nope, I really don't think so. Ask an atheist if a generic description for a higher being should be capitalised and I bet you'll get a different answer.

Can't you see the problem? It shows what *you* think and it subtly leads the way. Actually not so subtly but I'm trying to be gentle here.

Now whether the conclusion of that study is valid or not will have to be verified with further experiments with different samples under different circumstances and in different environments. But I don't believe one second there's bias going on there. Especially that it explains why so many people who don't follow any religion still believe in God.

We'll have to differ on this one. I read a lot of bias into it. If that bias is fully conscious I can't say, but they are not neutral.

If it's not simply intuition (as it has been in my case), then what is it? Ignorance and fear (as MLA suggested)? Nah, that's shallow closed-minded thinking.

Shallow-minded thinking to take that leap of faith? I'd say quite the opposite.

[eris]

Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.

In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)

Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part.  Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.


 

[odeon]

I found this study interesting:

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/09/thinking-god.aspx

Intuition does seem to favor the existence of some God.

Someone did a "study" on "intuition" and "god"?   :lolwat:

Well, you have Harvard Uni researchers, a study published in one of the top psychology journals, a pretty interesting and significant subject for the study of the human mind with relation to the concept of God.

Not sure why you would want to make fun of such a study. That's what psychology studies are basically all about. Studying the human mind.

Credibility is not just in a name or a place. Remember that Dr Wakefield's mercury-as-cause-of-autism paper appeared in the Lancet but in spite of peer reviews, a respected journal and a ditto scientist (at that point), the study turned out to have about as much credibility as L Ron Hubbard.

[odeon]

But I would not agree with you that people who rely on intuition for anything isn't thinking things through. He's just approaching things from a different angle than how someone relying on reflection would.

Assuming that the "intuition" in question works. Would it work the same for any kind of problem?

Without going into the middle ground stuff, and generally speaking, the believer believes in God because he thought it through with his intuition. The unbeliever discards his intuition and concludes that he doesn't have any reason to believe God exists and so he thought it through by using reflection.

You're saying that an unbeliever would have to discard his intuition and use his rationality to arrive at that conclusion?

My intuition says "bullshit". My rational mind says that you are assuming several steps here.

Obviously, reflection gives more valid answers than intuition as science has shown, but this does not change one bit what intuition favors.

According to the study, which you seem to favour and I don't.

Around 90% of the Americans believe in a god, generally speaking. This would mean that 10% do not, simply put, so it follows that fewer than 90 people in the study were non-believers, a far too small number to draw any conclusions from, even without a more neutral study.

[ZEGH8578]

"intuition" is just as hard-coded into our system as anything else. the only reason we call it "intuition" and not "instinct" is that "im no goddamn monkey!" and all that.

theres nothing special about the way humans think, or experience their surroundings. our imagination isnt unique (animals are capable of complex imagination, in order to hunt and survive) and our emotions are also just human versions of whats seen out in the wild, joy (yay food!) fear (oh no, tiger!) sorrow (aw shucks, we lost a pack member) reactions seen in other fairly complex beings in the wild.

there never was a "red line" to separate humans from the rest of animals. the whole bag of human grey-zones (neanderthals, homo erectus, australopithecines, etc) show that even better.

if _humans_ _first_ thought of deities: "huh! there must be something!"
how come there was absolutely NO sign from this deity before (or after, for that matter  ) that point in time?

from a purely logical, and faith-less point of view: there cannot be deities. there simply is no room for such a possibility.

[Psychophant]

Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.

In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)

Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part.  Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.


 

Interesting....I'm considering taking up philosophy in college.   

[midlifeaspie]

Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.

In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)

Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part.  Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.


 

Interesting....I'm considering taking up philosophy in college.   

It's fun, but the only thing you can do with an undergraduate degree in philosophy is apply for a graduate program in philosophy.  The only thing you can do with a graduate degree in philosophy is teach philosophy. 

[Psychophant]

From what I understand, ancient people's developed the concept of God's to explain natural phenomena that could not be explained otherwise in the limited knowledge of those times.  Volcanoes--Vulcan, etc, lightning--Zeus, Thor, etc.  Earthquakes--Poseidon, and on and on it goes. 

That is simplistic, I know, but, it seems one thing led to another with the rise of priests/priestesses, shamans, etc.  The ancient gods reflected nature, random, cruel, beneficial, powerful, devastating, life giving, etc. 

[odeon]

And interestingly, the decrees of a god very often match the views of the ruling classes, practically never those of the little people.

[Psychophant]

Short answer: Yes. But it is not a perfect, omnipotent being that wants to micromanage us. we are no longer connected to it.

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it better than I can.

In general, Deists prided themselves on free-thinking and logic and tended to reject any specific dogma, so it is difficult to define the beliefs of an individual Deist without referring to generalities. John Locke's mechanistic philosophy and Newtonian physics heavily influenced many Deists, so they saw the universe as a place ruled rationally by cause and effect. They tended to see God as an impersonal but intelligent force, a first cause that created the universe and set it in motion, who then allowed life and matter to proceed on its own without further need for divine intervention. The logic is that, if God is infallible, omniscient and omnipotent, logically he would pre-establish his design in the world in such a way that he would not need to tinker constantly with it or adjust it through supernatural intervention. (Such activity indicates an error, a change of mind, indecision, or some other sign of imperfection on God's part.)

Deists thought this divine being to be completely transcendent--separate from the creation rather than contained within it. Deistic writings often refer to the Deity using metaphors of the architect, the watchmaker, the mason, or some other skilled worker who measures out the universe with geometric and mechanical precision. Deist metaphor compares the universe to a perfectly designed watch or clock--a construct created with complex gears and moving parts, then wound up, and finally released since it can operate on its own without any more effort on the creator's part.  Deists rejected the belief that an infallible creator would need to intervene via miracles and individual revelation.


 

Interesting....I'm considering taking up philosophy in college.   

It's fun, but the only thing you can do with an undergraduate degree in philosophy is apply for a graduate program in philosophy.  The only thing you can do with a graduate degree in philosophy is teach philosophy.

I may take a minor in it.  The medical field still looms as the best bet for me.  But, the medical field also incorporates a lot of philosophy as well.   It might come in handy in dealing with people in crisis interventions.  In this day and age of cross cultural blending, I'm coming into contact with many different faiths in my job.

[earthboundmisfit]

Would theology be a better course for your purposes?