Hi Path,
May I first publicly apologise for giving the impression that I think I know better than you what drives your own beliefs. I do not think that I can do that, and nor will I ever think that. I will get to what I did mean in due later.
Perhaps you could elaborate on your methods of validation. My understanding of science (and a lot of others' understanding as well) is that atheism or theism has not much to do with science. You can't validate either the existence or non-existence of God through scientific methods. There is "proof" that supports either belief. Ultimately, it just isn't a very good mechanism for the task.
I agree that science cannot answer the question of whether or not God exists, and not because it is ill equipped, but because 'believers' can and do always move the fence posts. What science can look at in some detail, hypothesise, test and publish results on is the nature and causes of belief in the human psyche. The father of religious psychology, William James (1842-1910), stated that there were two types of religious experience, healthy minded and sick souled and his insight into them remains as relevant today as ever.
I go a step further and say that healthy-minded, despite its benign or even rewarding aspect is still a fictional notion. Jung was a great fan of James and further developed these ideas to include archetypes, themes that crop up again and again in isolation all around the world. Again here Jung was a romantic, its said he could hardly dare cross his door without consulting the I-Ching, and having read a lot of his work I believe that!! He, like Einstein, was loathe to publicly declare either way and proclaimed himself agnostic but throughout his work I believe he declares himself to have beliefs much akin to yours. He was an undefined healthy-minded type.
Based on more recent work into the evolutionary psychology of religion I think it can be fairly demonstrated that belief is factored into the human psyche by a powerful combination of psychological needs that developed as a result of us evolving as social animals with a high degree of self awareness. These are now so profoundly ingrained in us that we can measure them physiologically in the brain as they are stimulated. And what this shows us is that all the activity can be similarly stimulated by pushing the psychological buttons that deal with human relationships, fears, desires, self worth, ambition, etc. In those with neurotic disorders this is especially pronounced as is their tendency to extreme, (sick-souled), religious belief. We have a desire to believe in God, a deep one. But I think it not because we are connected but because we mentally find it a great comfort to do so. But that we can study the reasons why we believe and find in them 'Godless' causation is hard science. So when you say.....
Saying God cannot be found in chaos is not, in part, a definition of God's supposed attributes?
I can with confidence say that God has no attributes as It does not exist except as a human concept.
Definition of absence is, by extension, defining what you expect to see. If you define the absence of God as random chance, then you are implying that God would yield order (and order that you can observe and is universal).
By extension anything can be made to be anything. But it has been the religions, not me, that have sought to define and impose God on mankind. I simply respond to their claims. I fully appreciate that you have developed for yourself a set of beliefs that most religions would scorn and for the same reason they would scorn mine. They cannot make money out of it. And this is another reason religions are so endemic in all societies. Smart sharks understood the psychology of religion and harnessed it to their profit. But that's another tangent.
I am proposing that whether or not someone experiences/observes God depends on how you are defining God (or Its absence). I observe God where you observe natural processes. I am not observing different processes from you, but I am exploring them in different ways- in a way of interaction, connection as opposed to only observation.
My point is that you could substitute "observe/observation" , where you apply it to yourself, with impose/imposition and make it support my stance.
I think to define what is best for another human being is kind of patronizing.
Indeed it is. But to take it personally is to misunderstand the position that I propose from. This position is analytical and from the study of what can be measured. Not from belief alone. And I am not commenting on your individual belief but mankind's propensity toward belief. I and others have called it evangelical atheism but it shares none of the unprovable dogma of evangelical religions. It is based on genuine repeatable studies.
I find it insulting when anyone thinks they have the Right Answer (whether it is a religious or atheistic one) and then thinks the rest of the world is delusional. Similarly, most atheists I know feel it is insulting that religious folks tell them they are "lost" and such like.
I would agree with you wholeheartedly if religions and beliefs of that nature were benign but they are not. My own belief is that the combined threat of Global Warming and the incessant 'shepherding' of the masses behind religious/political groups creates too serious a threat to allow this to continue. Religions have since history began primarily been used for three reasons. To spy on, to tax and to rally the people to war. Belief is not simply your own neutral soft and fluffy idealism. Its a suicide belt, a helicopter gunship, a nuclear arsenal. Its the lives of millions of people held in the most appalling conditions while our greedy selfish leaders rape their lands. Its the lack of an urgent strategy to deal with the real threats of climate change , population control and food production. I dont call those with religion "lost" but I do call them used, abused and downright wrong. It is because I care about people having a real life of some quality on this Earth, now and in the future, and not the promise of a mythical paradise for their suffering today. I dont believe what I believe to score points in some debate but because I feel it is now imperative that mankind wake up to the realities that face us. To do that we need a mass realisation that religions and the beliefs they peddle are fictions. Fictions cleverly developed over centuries by the most ruthless individuals our species has thrown up to control individuals and populations. If there is some way to preserve your kind of Buddhist 'at one' philosophy with which I have much empathy I am all for it. But not at the cost of allowing totalitarian dogmas to take us all to armagedon.
I am afraid I have run out of time
There is still much I would like to say on the rest of your post but it will have to wait. I do hope that I have shown you, and anyone else who may have thought I dismiss them as being less than me, that my whole reason for being at CR is because I want to contribute, and not because I want to take from anyone. I present an opinion and that is all.
Regards
Tao
