Theism's Demand: Is it morally wrong to believe in God?

Theism's Demand: Is it morally wrong to believe in God?

Emerson Green

I used to think theism was overwhelmingly improbable, given the weight of the evidence against it. There is quite a lot to suggest that the universe is utterly indifferent to good and evil, pain and pleasure, value and disvalue. I never saw the fingerprints of God on DNA or the innards of cells, or the “beginning” of the universe, or strange events reported in human affairs taken to be miraculous. I do, however, seem to notice an absence of God in aimless forest fires, in merciless predation, in the unspeakable cruelty human beings have been known to inflict. Damning as that may seem, the evidence isn’t all in favor of an indifferent universe. In some ways, we’re quite fortunate – suspiciously so, many have argued. The problem of evil nevertheless prevents me from venturing past a middle boundary; so I end up as an agnostic of some sort. It may prove to be an unstable position. But it’s where the contradictory evidence of our world has left me for the time being.

The question of God’s existence necessarily involves evaluative – not merely descriptive – claims. I don’t just mean ordinary normative epistemic judgments, which involve the weighing of evidence and the import of theoretical virtues like simplicity. Because God is said to be good, we cannot evaluate the evidence for and against the theistic hypothesis while avoiding any moral judgments whatsoever. If we are to look out at the world to judge whether our expectations have been verified or violated, we cannot pretend our understanding of the good has no bearing on our assessment of the evidence. God, the foundation of reality, our loving Heavenly Father of unsurpassable power and goodness has allegedly created this world. Your world – the world you see outside your window. The world you read about in biology textbooks. Thus, how one understands the good directly influences one’s evaluation of theism.

It’s true that the kind, degree, and distribution of pain (and pleasure) in our world is evidence supporting an indifferent universe. But for me, there’s something else blocking the road to theism. I can’t shake the feeling that it would be wrong to believe, somehow. Becoming a theist would require a seal of approval on the suffering on earth. I would have to believe, for any instance of pain, or at least for pain in general, that it was okay that it occurred, all things considered – that it was not unjustified for an all-powerful God to permit or create. There is some sense in which theism demands approval of suffering that surely wouldn’t be endorsed by the sufferer. This is a betrayal and an abandonment of those creatures. Theism asks too much of me. It asks me to betray every creature who ever suffered without reason...

Interesting essay, I don't agree with Green necessarily though the same reasoning prevents me from accepting a God who is All Good, All Knowing, and All Powerful.

But I do lean toward a Panentheism, where the "One" exists as the Ground of All Being...though not sure if this One even needs to be a conscious entity...

The difficulty I always find in such areas is the way the word 'God' is interpreted. From my perspective, it often seems as though people become limited in their argumentation by adherence to various things specific religions or their adherents have said. My starting point is always to let go of any religious preconceptions, which tend to anchor thinking into certain constrained views and expectations. It is possible to have other ideas about God.

Theism's Demand: Is it morally wrong to believe in God?

Emerson Green


Interesting essay, I don't agree with Green necessarily though the same reasoning prevents me from accepting a God who is All Good, All Knowing, and All Powerful.

But I do lean toward a Panentheism, where the "One" exists as the Ground of All Being...though not sure if this One even needs to be a conscious entity...

I think this quote gets into the perpetual theodicy problem that I remember has already been rather thoroughly explored here a while ago. I proposed one which I consider to be at least marginally valid, based on an essay by Granville Sewell who belongs to the DI and writes for Evolution News.  This thread is at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...t=theodicy.

I think this quote gets into the perpetual theodicy problem that I remember has already been rather thoroughly explored here a while ago. I proposed one which I consider to be at least marginally valid, based on an essay by Granville Sewell who belongs to the DI and writes for Evolution News.  This thread is at https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...t=theodicy.

I thought the angle was interesting, that it's actually immoral to believe in the idea that Designers have some plan that can justify the suffering of this world.

I don't agree with it, if for nothing else than the alleviation of suffering - such as the global Abolition movement & varied Civil Rights movements - have a religious sentiment if not fully inspired by religion.

Even the atheist Chomsky notes how Cartesian Dualism was a great inspiration for Abolition, and we know Swedenborg's followers also were inspired to fight slavery.

But I like interesting arguments, and this certainly fit that description...

Theism's Demand: Is it morally wrong to believe in God?

Emerson Green


Interesting essay, I don't agree with Green necessarily though the same reasoning prevents me from accepting a God who is All Good, All Knowing, and All Powerful.

But I do lean toward a Panentheism, where the "One" exists as the Ground of All Being...though not sure if this One even needs to be a conscious entity...

I looked up Theism and the word is used in various ways. If by Theism he means God is supposed to prevent forest fires etc then I am not a Theist, and I would say Theism is improbable.

But I think it is not logical to conclude that because we have forest fires, then the fine tuning of the universe could not be caused by an intelligence.  You would need a different reason to believe the universe arose spontaneously due to only natural unconscious processes.

So if he is really arguing only about Theism in its entirety I don't necessarily disagree. But if he is extrapolating that since Theism is improbable, that non physical consciousness, the afterlife, reincarnation, intelligent action in the creation of the universe and creation of life on earth, and intelligent influence in macroevolution  are all impossible then I would disagree.