From a born again Christian to a militant angry Atheist, to a Stoic Atheist, to a Stoic Theist, to a who knows what next.

What a journey I have had. So I read this book by Mike McHargue. At this point I can agree with these axioms he laid out. If I was to move any further into a state of belief, it will not be through further investigation/study, I would need for God to touch my heart like so many claim he has done.

But for now, this is enough.

Faith is AT LEAST a way to contextualize the human need for spirituality and find meaning in the face of mortality. EVEN IF this is all faith is, spiritual practice can be beneficial to cognition, emotional states, and culture.

God is AT LEAST the natural forces that created and sustain the Universe as experienced via a psychosocial model in human brains that naturally emerges from innate biases. EVEN IF that is a comprehensive definition for God, the pursuit of this personal, subjective experience can provide meaning, peace, and empathy for others.

Prayer is AT LEAST a form of meditation that encourages the development of healthy brain tissue, lowers stress, and can connect us to God. EVEN IF that is a comprehensive definition of prayer, the health and psychological benefits of prayer justify the discipline.

Sin is AT LEAST volitional action or inaction that violates one's own understanding of what is moral. Sin comes from the divergent impulses between our lower and higher brain functions and our evolution-driven tendency to do things that serve ourselves and our tribe. EVEN IF this is all sin is, it is destructive and threatens human flourishing.

The afterlife is AT LEAST the persistence of our physical matter in the ongoing life cycle on Earth, the memes we pass on to others with our lives, and the model of our unique neurological signature in the brains of those who knew us. EVEN IF this is all the afterlife is, the consequences of our actions persist beyond our death and our ethical considerations must consider a timeline beyond our death.

Salvation is AT LEAST the means by which humanity overcomes sin to produce human flourishing. EVEN IF this is all salvation is, spiritual and religious actions and beliefs that promote salvation are good for humankind.

Jesus is AT LEAST a man so connected to God that he was called the Son of God and the largest religious movement in human history is centered around his teachings. EVEN IF this is all Jesus is, following his teachings can promote peace, empathy, and genuine morality.

The Holy Spirit is AT LEAST the psychological and neurological components of God that allow God to be experienced as a personal force or agent. EVEN IF this is all the Holy Spirit is, God is more relatable and neurologically actionable when experienced this way.

The Church is AT LEAST the global community of people who choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. EVEN IF this is all the church is, the Church is still the largest body of spiritual scholarship, community, and faith practice in the world.

The Bible is AT LEAST a collection of books and writings assembled by the Church that chronicle a people group's experiences with, and understanding of, God over thousands of years. EVEN IF that is a comprehensive definition of the Bible, study of scripture is warranted to understand our culture and the way in which people come to know God.

How do I currently define the concept of god?

Great question. I don't know. And I feel like I could be 100% wrong about the whole thing. Which when I took the Atheistic position I was pretty damn sure I could not be wrong.

What I feel really concrete about is that at the level of our consciousness the universe appears to be ordered and rational, and our consciousness has given us a wonderful gift of "reason". This may be a quirk of physics, or a thoughtful design, but I take comfort in it for some odd reason. This is closest to the Stoic philosophers version of the "Logos".

To move to a caring, involved God like Christianity describes...

as I said in the OP, that would take more than intellectual discovery. That would require something else and I am not aware of what that is, or what it would look like.

I was surprised to find I'm with you on most of these. A couple of disagreements, though:

I don't think I'd equate prayer with meditation. Some prayer may be similar to meditation, but not most of it.

I also don't agree with the Ghost, Church, and Bible parts. I think those extrapolate too far.

Interesting post, though.

swimwithstones wrote:

I don't think I'd equate prayer with meditation. Some prayer may be similar to meditation, but not most of it.
.

I thought those three points were quite conservative in the assertions. What is it that makes you think they extrapolate too far?

"The Holy Spirit is AT LEAST the psychological and neurological components of God that allow God to be experienced as a personal force or agent. EVEN IF this is all the Holy Spirit is, God is more relatable and neurologically actionable when experienced this way."

"The Church is AT LEAST the global community of people who choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. EVEN IF this is all the church is, the Church is still the largest body of spiritual scholarship, community, and faith practice in the world."

"The Bible is AT LEAST a collection of books and writings assembled by the Church that chronicle a people group's experiences with, and understanding of, God over thousands of years. EVEN IF that is a comprehensive definition of the Bible, study of scripture is warranted to understand our culture and the way in which people come to know God."

That's a very thought-provoking post. Thank you.

Along the lines of justifying faith, I think considering Pascal's Wager is a worthwhile endeavor.

I think Pascal's Wager has a lot of holes in it, namely the false dichotomy it sets up.

1) The Christian god exists as we understand him, we understand how to worship him, we understand what to do to gain access to the eternal life he grants us, and we know the eternal life is a thing we truly want.

2) There's no god.

It leaves out all the other possibilities, such as God is actually completely different than the Christian god and he takes great offense at that kind of worship. Not to mention belief is not something you have control over. You can't will yourself to believe in a god if you don't, so you're basically at the whims of however skeptical God made you (or didn't).

But either way, just be a nice person.

Good points. Thanks.

I think you have to consider the context of Pascal living in 17th century, Christian Europe, where the dichotomy you describe was not immediately apparent to him.

One could capture the essence of the wager and generalize it to be something like:

One should believe in an afterlife, as espoused by a major religion (or not), and live their lives accordingly, because:

1) If the afterlife premise is false, the cost of living such a life is (very) small;

2) If the afterlife premise is true, the benefit of living such a life is (very) large.

I thought those three points were quite conservative in the assertions. What is it that makes you think they extrapolate too far?