Why do Humans believe in the Existence of God?

[Chris12345]

It seems like the two topics that people are most dogmatic about are religion and evolution.

With debates like this the chances of anyone changing their mind are slim to nil. The miracle would be if someone were to say "you're right, I look at it differently now, I've changed my mind". Very rarely happens.

For that to happen an intellectual honesty is required that isn't often found. People's identities are tied into the position they take too deeply in most cases to countenance the possibility of changing their mind. That can apply on both sides.

With that in mind it's worth asking - is there any point discussing it at all? I would say if both sides are dogmatically locked in then no, there isn't. Good faith is required to make any discussion worth having. Otherwise it's an exercise in propaganda, sophistry, rhetoric.

 

[Neri]

With debates like this the chances of anyone changing their mind are slim to nil. The miracle would be if someone were to say "you're right, I look at it differently now, I've changed my mind". Very rarely happens.

For that to happen an intellectual honesty is required that isn't often found. People's identities are tied into the position they take too deeply in most cases to countenance the possibility of changing their mind. That can apply on both sides.

With that in mind it's worth asking - is there any point discussing it at all? I would say if both sides are dogmatically locked in then no, there isn't. Good faith is required to make any discussion worth having. Otherwise it's an exercise in propaganda, sophistry, rhetoric.

And does it really matter? I have a near death experiencer's account on my logic rationale thread who met Jesus, on the other side, and he asked him "Why are there so many religions and differing beliefs?"
Jesus said "Everyone is where they are supposed to be".

We really don't need to worry that we think and believe differently. We are all where we are supposed to be. Everything is Good and Right in the Universe. We choose our suffering to learn more about love and joy through experiencing the contrast. Atheists are on their own journey of self and life discovery. Science is awesome. Life is good, even when it doesn't feel like it is. All is well.
I respect everyone here.

 

[The Pandector]

@The Pandector

Provide an alternative explanation that explains the data better. Actually I'll give you some points for providing an alternative explanation that conforms with the scientific method at all.

"Creation" isn't an option of course. It doesn't conform with the scientific method, and there is literally no data to support it as an alternative explanation anyway. I don't object to people believing it - that's a personal choice. But belief unsupported by a theory and facts doesn't count as science.

A reminder - we've done this before. You can't tempt me to discuss irrelevant stuff like the possible relationship between US student debt and evolution

You’re right, we’ve done this before. I thought I’d learned a lesson, but…

No, I am not interested in providing you with an alternate explanation for your very specific set of data points. I believe I’ve admitted several times that the scientific method is not valid as the sole source of facts in the pursuit of truth.

You state flatly that creation is not consistent with the scientific method. See if you have the intellectual patience to give this a whirl, just a thought game.

We now know that time is not a constant. Why would we be dogmatic that geologic time has been a constant lo these many eons? Any god who was creating the universe ex nihilo would certainly have time as a tool during the creation process. IOW, processes that we can only conceive of as happening over billions of years, could have been accomplished by that god in a matter of nanoseconds. Now imagine that, instead, he saw fit to do it in six days.

The assumption of the constance of time is only one of the mistakes made by people who think that the one who created the orderly universe is confined and constricted within the framework he created. Believers, OTOH, are comfortable with a God who routinely interferes in the otherwise natural unfolding of the universe. We tend to make a big deal out of several dozen historically significant and extreme examples, but in fact miracles happen all the time, including the type that bend time. You know, without the extra gravity and all.

 

[The Pandector]

With debates like this the chances of anyone changing their mind are slim to nil. The miracle would be if someone were to say "you're right, I look at it differently now, I've changed my mind". Very rarely happens.

For that to happen an intellectual honesty is required that isn't often found. People's identities are tied into the position they take too deeply in most cases to countenance the possibility of changing their mind. That can apply on both sides.

With that in mind it's worth asking - is there any point discussing it at all? I would say if both sides are dogmatically locked in then no, there isn't. Good faith is required to make any discussion worth having. Otherwise it's an exercise in propaganda, sophistry, rhetoric.

It’s a mistake to think that no effect is had just because no one kneels down and confesses defeat. That is not a productive or rational expectation. I could make the case that it’s a combative attitude, suggesting that disagreement must end in winners or losers. As you almost suggest, real change of mind and heart usually happens over time and in many increments.

If we are concerned, however, about how people seem locked into their positions, maybe we should consider the scientifically demonstrable fact that demeaning the opposition tends strongly towards division rather than reconciliation of differing opinions.

 

[Fino]

With debates like this the chances of anyone changing their mind are slim to nil. The miracle would be if someone were to say "you're right, I look at it differently now, I've changed my mind". Very rarely happens.

For that to happen an intellectual honesty is required that isn't often found. People's identities are tied into the position they take too deeply in most cases to countenance the possibility of changing their mind. That can apply on both sides.

With that in mind it's worth asking - is there any point discussing it at all? I would say if both sides are dogmatically locked in then no, there isn't. Good faith is required to make any discussion worth having. Otherwise it's an exercise in propaganda, sophistry, rhetoric.

An exercise in rhetoric doesn't sound so bad to me!

 

[Au Naturel]

Here's a lovely short from an interview with Eric Weinstein about the nature of religion. He's a mathematician and an atheist Jew who is also a writer and YouTube "influencer."

 

[Neri]

Here's a lovely short from an interview with Eric Weinstein about the nature of religion. He's a mathematician and an atheist Jew who is also a writer and YouTube "influencer."

I enjoyed it. It sounds oxymoronic, an "atheist jew". I like him. Judaism fascinates me, and even a lot of quote unquote secular jews; I find fascinating. Interesting take for the atheistic mind to ponder. The ad at the end spoilt the experience for me a bit. Ads disturb my monotropic brain.

But on a more content-responsive note; I, personally, love the diversity of ethnicities, faiths, paths, wisdom traditions and perspectives that make up our ever-interesting human species. I really enjoy deep thinkers and "seekers" and I'm also glad that there are the more "conventional" church goers and tradition-following types.

My Aspie Dad has been quite "saved" by becoming a Christian. He goes to a lovely, and quite "liberal" (they have had a lesbian pastor; punks and gay people comfortably attend) Baptist church in St Kilda, Melbourne. My Dad struggled with deep depression and SI when I was a kid. Church has given him a social life, acceptance and inclusion and Christianity has given him peace and quality of life.

I live with a science head who was quite the anti Christian when I met him. He isn't so much now. I've converted him to being open to a lot more spirituality because I'm a very solid "Believer" but not in the way that I could join any churches. I'm a bit too "eclectic" to commit to one religion. I'm more of a "Now Ager" which certainly includes Yeshua/Christ as real and whom I have had deep and incredibly beautiful and illuminating experiences of. The energy is not something that is easy to describe, and yet it's so beautiful, comforting, loving, powerful and kind, it often brings me to happy tears.
I own a lot of bibles, but I don't read them much, and yet Bible stories I find deeeeply impactful and meaningful and have been known to also make me cry as I stroke the pages in extreme gratitude and humility. However, I do the same with Rumi poetry.

I also like science, but not the psychopathic sort. Nor do I like the dogmatic scientism religiosity that some people demonstrate any more that zealot religious types that use their religion to hide behind their supercillious judgemental and hateful hypocriticality. No one else likes how hateful people can be when their beliefs mean more to them than being a decent, kindly human to other humans, except other people who share their same hateful superiority and dogmatism.

Luckily, we are (I hope) growing out of that, as a species. I think we are, mostly, tired of hatefulness.

 

[Neri]

This seems pertinent to the original question.

 

[Au Naturel]

With debates like this the chances of anyone changing their mind are slim to nil. The miracle would be if someone were to say "you're right, I look at it differently now, I've changed my mind". Very rarely happens.

For that to happen an intellectual honesty is required that isn't often found. People's identities are tied into the position they take too deeply in most cases to countenance the possibility of changing their mind. That can apply on both sides.

With that in mind it's worth asking - is there any point discussing it at all? I would say if both sides are dogmatically locked in then no, there isn't. Good faith is required to make any discussion worth having. Otherwise it's an exercise in propaganda, sophistry, rhetoric.

The purpose of a discussion is not to change the other person's mind. It is to explore your own. If you are trying to change the other person's mind, it isn't a discussion. It is at best a debate, and more likely an argument.

 

[The Pandector]

This seems pertinent to the original question.

Hmmm. Another really bright guy bound and determined to find ‘rational’ reasons for why some people respond to God and some people don’t. Could it be that some people have ears to hear while others do not? Because, I’m looking around the world and see a lot of bright people who can’t see the facts right before their faces.

I don’t blame the blind guy for bumping into the furniture; he simply doesn’t have the natural faculty to see what’s right before him. Likewise, most people, according to the Bible anyway, simply don’t have the faculties to see spiritual truth though it’s all around them.

Problem doesn’t usually come from those with spiritual vision. Problems usually center around those blind people who have sore shins from flailing around in the spiritual darkness; they are frustrated to the point of rage by what they cannot see. It’s an interesting question asked in the second psalm. Why do the nations rage and the people plot in vain? They don’t want to be answerable to God. Not like it’s a mystery we’ll never get to the bottom of. Just that their rage betrays their confusion at trying to understand creation without a creator.

I like the Big Bang theory. There was a tremendous explosion at a brick factory and all the pieces fell back down into the shape of the Sistine Chapel; an explosion at a junkyard and all the pieces came down as a fully functional jumbo jet. “Yeah, but if there were enough explosions and it took a long enough time to settle…” Right; and that roomful of monkeys is still working on that Shakespeare manuscript, because, theoretically…

Too bad the implications are eternal; otherwise, it really is laughable the lengths that some people will go to to avoid being answerable to God. Sadly for them, God still Is.

 

[Hypnalis]

We now know that time is not a constant. Why would we be dogmatic that geologic time has been a constant lo these many eons?

That's not how time dilation works.
You're just demonstrating that you don't understand Relativity.

Back to the core idea (time manipulation): the argument is actually: "let's assume something that's impossible according to our current understanding of the universe is in fact possible, then claim that the impossible stuff it implies is reality".

So it's a version of the general approach "The god of the gaps."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
A typical response (from that article (I'm not a Dawkins fan BTW, but this text is ok)):

Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.

I've been watching different versions of this argument come and go for decades. The "current version" always falls apart, and some time later a new gap is manufactured and used as a substitute.

I thought "manipulating time for your own convenience" was discarded long ago, because it looks foolish when someone who understands relativity explains it. Are you sure you're using the latest playbook?
:
:
PS
You're also indirectly claiming that some variation on these methods was used:
* All the evidence for geology and evolution was deliberately faked as part of the process
* "Creation" was done in real time, with events directed to as to produce what we observe today, including e.g. the fossil evidence for forms of life that had no descendants at the time humans appeared (minus 5.5 million years if you like (last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees)).

Given the approach "anything is possible if you make the right assumptions" you can claim creation could be implemented that way, but then you have a problem with claiming any "big-G god" is perfect, because those approaches are inefficient and manipulative - literally designed to fool humans. For what purpose?

Small impossibilities need smaller impossibilities and so ad infinitum.

 

[Magna]

Likewise, most people, according to the Bible anyway, simply don’t have the faculties to see spiritual truth though it’s all around them.

^ And yet also according to the Bible, God will punish such people for all of eternity....

You touch on a very pertinent point when you say that "most people....simply don't have the faculties to see spiritual truth":

This topic being discussed on an autism focused site is a great example of what you refer to. Many people, myself included, can't and won't believe something that doesn't make sense just because "everyone is supposed to"; and the threat of eternal punishment isn't enough because many of us need to understand of have some sort of understanding about things in order to believe them. Literal thinkers.

Autism is considered a disability. I'm interested in the idea that God would potentially send disabled people to hell for eternity if such people can't or won't do something (ie believe in God) just because someone tells them, under threat, that if they don't believe a theological concept, they're choosing eternal suffering. Is God an Ableist????

Telling people who can't choose between believing in God or suffering for eternity that they're screwed forever and it's their own fault is like telling someone who has basic math skills that they must believe in controversial complex theories in Astrophysics or suffer for eternity. Even those of us who are Agnostic and believe that God could exist (or not) but we have no way of knowing either way isn't sufficient in Christianity.

Also, in my own personal experience as well as my experience having many autistic friends, probably one of the LAST places to find people who say they believe (but actually don't) and therefore are disingenuous, would be on an autism forum. Autistics are loathe to be disingenuous. Point being: "Just try to believe.", "Just say you believe even if you don't and after time, you will believe.", "You're not trying hard enough to believe." is just not an option for many of us. I personally have zero problem with that.

 

[Fino]

^ And yet also according to the Bible, God will punish such people for all of eternity....

You touch on a very pertinent point when you say that "most people....simply don't have the faculties to see spiritual truth":

This topic being discussed on an autism focused site is a great example of what you refer to. Many people, myself included, can't and won't believe something that doesn't make sense just because "everyone is supposed to"; and the threat of eternal punishment isn't enough because many of us need to understand of have some sort of understanding about things in order to believe them. Literal thinkers.

Autism is considered a disability. I'm interested in the idea that God would potentially send disabled people to hell for eternity if such people can't or won't do something (ie believe in God) just because someone tells them, under threat, that if they don't believe a theological concept, they're choosing eternal suffering. Is God an Ableist????

Telling people who can't choose between believing in God or suffering for eternity that they're screwed forever and it's their own fault is like telling someone who has basic math skills that they must believe in controversial complex theories in Astrophysics or suffer for eternity. Even those of us who are Agnostic and believe that God could exist (or not) but we have no way of knowing either way isn't sufficient in Christianity.

Also, in my own personal experience as well as my experience having many autistic friends, probably one of the LAST places to find people who say they believe (but actually don't) and therefore are disingenuous, would be on an autism forum. Autistics are loathe to be disingenuous. Point being: "Just try to believe.", "Just say you believe even if you don't and after time, you will believe.", "You're not trying hard enough to believe." is just not an option for many of us. I personally have zero problem with that.

I've never met anyone who believes Christianity because "everyone is supposed to" or to avoid Hell. The first reason I've never even heard of as a possibility.

 

[Magna]

I've never met anyone who believes Christianity because "everyone is supposed to" or to avoid Hell. The first reason I've never even heard of as a possibility.

What are you referring to when you say "the first reason I've never even heard of"?

You don't believe there are scores of people who "believe" and practice Christianity in order to avoid Hell as their main reason for doing so?

 

[jsilver256]

This seems pertinent to the original question.

Hmmm. Another really bright guy bound and determined to find ‘rational’ reasons for why some people respond to God and some people don’t. Could it be that some people have ears to hear while others do not? Because, I’m looking around the world and see a lot of bright people who can’t see the facts right before their faces.

I don’t blame the blind guy for bumping into the furniture; he simply doesn’t have the natural faculty to see what’s right before him. Likewise, most people, according to the Bible anyway, simply don’t have the faculties to see spiritual truth though it’s all around them.

Problem doesn’t usually come from those with spiritual vision. Problems usually center around those blind people who have sore shins from flailing around in the spiritual darkness; they are frustrated to the point of rage by what they cannot see. It’s an interesting question asked in the second psalm. Why do the nations rage and the people plot in vain? They don’t want to be answerable to God. Not like it’s a mystery we’ll never get to the bottom of. Just that their rage betrays their confusion at trying to understand creation without a creator.

I like the Big Bang theory. There was a tremendous explosion at a brick factory and all the pieces fell back down into the shape of the Sistine Chapel; an explosion at a junkyard and all the pieces came down as a fully functional jumbo jet. “Yeah, but if there were enough explosions and it took a long enough time to settle…” Right; and that roomful of monkeys is still working on that Shakespeare manuscript, because, theoretically…

Too bad the implications are eternal; otherwise, it really is laughable the lengths that some people will go to to avoid being answerable to God. Sadly for them, God still Is.

I don't think he's wrong. This video perfectly captures how I felt and viewed religion when I was an atheist. I think it's important to understand and enter the mindset of why NT arguments can turn off NDs, if you're trying to reach out to NDs.

@Magna is correct. You need more than the typical "if you don't believe, you'll go to hell" NT argument to convert a ND. My pastor definitely used all of his doctorate degrees in his repository to get me to believe.

 

[Fino]

What are you referring to when you say "the first reason I've never even heard of"?

You've don't believe there are scores of people who "believe" and practice Christianity in order to avoid Hell as their main reason for doing so?

No, I don’t. I’m sure it happens, but do people here realize the complexity of theology? I don’t think it’s likely that a person assents to the outlandish claims of over 1,000 pages for any of these reductionist, silly psychological explanations. And by “the first reason,” I mean the first reason you offered, that people believe because they think they’re supposed to. It’s not simply, “okay, I believe in God to avoid Hell.” Actual Christianity claims a heck of a lot more than that. And do people here realize how insulting these ideas are, that we’re too stupid to separate our base psychological desires over our ability to reason? That we’re not smart enough to interpret our own experiences in a reasonable way and if we were smarter, we would realize that it’s all just 2-bit psychology at play? That our hundreds of hours studying theology is just our minds playing tricks on us? And, apparently, not considering once that your own beliefs aren’t the simple result of going along with the changing beliefs of society?

Edit: I do admit I made the same arguments when I was an atheist, so I can see how they’re appealing explanations for why people have come to such drastically different conclusions than you have.

 

[Magna]

I mean the first reason you offered, that people believe because they think they’re supposed to.

Every missionary who set/sets forth to foreign lands believed/believes that everyone should believe what they do and that people are supposed to believe in God (it's God's desire for people to believe in him). You don't think a good number of people believe in God because they believe that God/ The Bible says they're supposed to?

 

[jsilver256]

Every missionary who set/sets forth to foreign lands believed/believes that everyone should believe what they do and that people are supposed to believe in God (it's God's desire for people to believe in him). You don't think a good number of people believe in God because they believe that God/ The Bible says they're supposed to?

This seems to be a couple of conflations. The motives of missionaries, versus the motives of John Q Public who's been raised a Christian all his life and might not have gone through the critical thought wringer.

 

[Fino]

Every missionary who set/sets forth to foreign lands believed/believes that everyone should believe what they do and that people are supposed to believe in God (it's God's desire for people to believe in him). You don't think a good number of people believe in God because they believe that God/ The Bible says they're supposed to?

But you're skipping a step. To believe in God because the Bible says they're supposed to, they first need to believe that the Bible has any authority. There are plenty of belief systems. Why conclude that this one has any merit over any other? No, I don't believe that's a likely or even a reasonable reason.

 

[The Pandector]

That's not how time dilation works.
You're just demonstrating that you don't understand Relativity.

Back to the core idea (time manipulation): the argument is actually: "let's assume something that's impossible according to our current understanding of the universe is in fact possible, then claim that the impossible stuff it implies is reality".

So it's a version of the general approach "The god of the gaps."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
A typical response (from that article (I'm not a Dawkins fan BTW, but this text is ok)):

Creationists eagerly seek a gap in present-day knowledge or understanding. If an apparent gap is found, it is assumed that God, by default, must fill it. What worries thoughtful theologians such as Bonhoeffer is that gaps shrink as science advances, and God is threatened with eventually having nothing to do and nowhere to hide.

I've been watching different versions of this argument come and go for decades. The "current version" always falls apart, and some time later a new gap is manufactured and used as a substitute.

I thought "manipulating time for your own convenience" was discarded long ago, because it looks foolish when someone who understands relativity explains it. Are you sure you're using the latest playbook?
:
:
PS
You're also indirectly claiming that some variation on these methods was used:
* All the evidence for geology and evolution was deliberately faked as part of the process
* "Creation" was done in real time, with events directed to as to produce what we observe today, including e.g. the fossil evidence for forms of life that had no descendants at the time humans appeared (minus 5.5 million years if you like (last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees)).

Given the approach "anything is possible if you make the right assumptions" you can claim creation could be implemented that way, but then you have a problem with claiming any "big-G god" is perfect, because those approaches are inefficient and manipulative - literally designed to fool humans. For what purpose?

Small impossibilities need smaller impossibilities and so ad infinitum.

Given my tone to this point, I suspect you have already triumphantly determined that I will not engage with you on scientific grounds and that makes you a winner, because after all, winning is what it’s all about. Congratulations, right up front: physics is not my field. (How in the world did you ever deduce that?). Likewise, the things involved with developing a relationship with God are simply not something you’re prepared to deal with. Just as you can plainly see that I’m not prepared to talk about physics, I can plainly see that you are ill equipped to discuss God.

First off, we notice that I don’t show up in the physics forum and try to enforce my understanding of physics. That’s because I know I can’t speak authoritatively about physics. This points up a major difference between us in this regard. You demonstrate a strong need to demean and secure intellectual dominance over people who operate in what to you is an uncharted universe (what in the world would make me say that?). I, OTOH, have no need whatsoever to demonstrate intellectual superiority over you.

You insist that the universe is defined by your understanding. Frankly, I could launch on that issue alone, and none of my words would make you seem particularly intelligent. But then again, many Christians act as though God is limited by their own understanding of him. It is part and parcel of the fallen nature of mankind, and we’re all subject to the fallen nature. So I don’t blame you for your frailty.

Nevertheless, it is the stridency and urgency of your need to conquer other people’s faith in God that really deserves our attention. Why, I ask, are you so intent upon this supposed intellectual domination? I ask because, undoubtedly, the answer to that question is more important in your heart than quarks and photons. Your internal milieu will be screaming ‘stick to science, stick to science’ but you and I both know that spiritual understanding is a black hole you can’t fathom. Still, it is also part of the fallen nature for our hearts to blind us to our lives’ most dangerous and uncomfortable truths.

So, while you can see my weakness in physics and I can see your ignorance of spiritual things, you aren’t satisfied. You can’t help badmouthing God and his followers. What you don’t see is my public demeaning of people whose understanding of the universe is limited to the physical sciences. It would seem that your success in the sciences hasn’t helped you overcome that deep inner need to deny God and dominate his followers.

‘Oh, you’re deflecting, don’t try to change the subject or distract me! Stick to science!’ The reason that isn’t working for you is because your problem isn’t a scientific one, it’s a spiritual problem. And there you sit, bound and determined to stick to the science, to stay completely away from that spiritual black hole.

If you could admit your fear to yourself, @Hypnalis , you might begin to heal. Do I think these words will have an impact on you? I’m not as naive as all that, but one never knows when a word of truth or wisdom will find its target. At least now we’re talking about your real issue, which has nothing to do with whether God’s mastery of time is limited to your understanding of relativity.

Hubris is blinding.