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.

Thinking about this some more...For me the biggest counter argument is all the charitable work I've seen religious people do to ease the suffering of this world.

I do like Green, and I think his argument is interesting, but what does it amount to? I get his claim that religious people can ignore the suffering of this world, claiming it's all part of a Plan...but when rubber meets road are there a lot of atheists doing the kind of non-profit / charity work their most targeted group - Christians - do?

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.

This is the hot button issue really. I've read so much about the history of stuff like Christianity, how the original G O D wasn't even the god of everything he was just a scrub in a pantheon of other gods and how he changed over time that the idea of taking him seriously makes me laugh. But if you reject the trappings of traditional religions the possibilities of what 'god' is or could be really open up. 

I'm definitely of the mind that if any type of higher power exists, whether it be some plain ass creator or universe intelligence or whatever, it certainly doesn't belong to the trappings of OUR morality and definitely isn't something to sit down and offer praise to. Much the same as our lot, it is simply a part of the universe that exists.

This is the hot button issue really. I've read so much about the history of stuff like Christianity, how the original G O D wasn't even the god of everything he was just a scrub in a pantheon of other gods and how he changed over time that the idea of taking him seriously makes me laugh. But if you reject the trappings of traditional religions the possibilities of what 'god' is or could be really open up. 

I'm definitely of the mind that if any type of higher power exists, whether it be some plain ass creator or universe intelligence or whatever, it certainly doesn't belong to the trappings of OUR morality and definitely isn't something to sit down and offer praise to. Much the same as our lot, it is simply a part of the universe that exists.

I've encountered an entity that seemed very much like a higher power, from the sheer presence it gave off ~ but it had no interest in playing the worship or deity game. It just seemed to have a very gentle and calm curiosity in helping those who could sense it. It was far beyond my comprehension when I first encountered it during one Ayahuasca journey ~ an energetically-vast vaguely bird-like entity not interested in interfering, just offering relevant guidance. It was entirely alien to my comprehension ~ trying to perceive it properly was like trying to observe multiple whirling galaxies all at once in full detail. It was overwhelming, to say the least.

This is the hot button issue really. I've read so much about the history of stuff like Christianity, how the original G O D wasn't even the god of everything he was just a scrub in a pantheon of other gods and how he changed over time that the idea of taking him seriously makes me laugh.

I’ve read a lot of stuff like this but unsure how much is true. 

I used to believe Easter was originally a pagan holiday celebrating a goddess, but seems like that was all made up and really they may have taken the name from a supposed goddess.

Even some of the Gnostic stuff was historically more about ancient Anti-Semitism than anything else.

Now I fully accept certain practices could have been drawn from prior sources, but I think it might be much less than what the internet has one believe.

Edit: I know there are more legitimate sources such as Esoterica which document some of the ways Yaweh may have historically come to be regarded.

I’ve read a lot of stuff like this but unsure how much is true. 

I used to believe Easter was originally a pagan holiday celebrating a goddess, but seems like that was all made up and really they may have taken the name from a supposed goddess.

Even some of the Gnostic stuff was historically more about ancient Anti-Semitism than anything else.

Now I fully accept certain practices could have been drawn from prior sources, but I think it might be much less than what the internet has one believe.

Edit: I know there are more legitimate sources such as Esoterica which document some of the ways Yaweh may have historically come to be regarded.

In my view, Easter and Christmas are effectively the same, both reflecting the turning of the seasons, the shortest day at midwinter followed by gradual turning into Springtime. Easter essentially marks the new growth of spring,  while the midwinter festivals are also looking to that same new growth with the lengthening of days. When people were more directly connected with the land whether through hunting and especially through farming, these things were of vital, life-saving and sustaining importance.

The word pagan, well it is often used in a derogatory sense but that might also reflect a similar view of those who live in towns or cities, considering themselves educated and sophisticated, while the countryfolk on whom they depended for their existence were considered dimwitted and unworthy.

As for how these things relate to a Christian religion, I take the pragmatic view that in starting a new religion from scratch, it would have no traditions, no festivals, nothing at all. So everything had to be either invented or borrowed and re-purposed from what was already there.

For example in Britain and western Europe, churches were often built on earlier religious sites, ancient megaliths may form part of such buildings or be included within the boundaries of a church's site. One can look at this in a number of ways, partly it could be seen as an act of conquest, not in any high-minded spiritual sense but simply as a sign of who held the reins of earthly power.

I try not to take a single-sided view of the rights and wrongs, the merits of a religion can be considered regardless of how it was arrived at, though I tend to find it hard to take official narratives too seriously, if a myth is useful then fine but in the end it is the direct connection to something greater which matters. In that context my preference is to do so in as simple a way as possible which places me outside of any formal belief system.