Funny question, isn’t it?
If you don’t believe in (a) God, but live in a place where most people do, you’ve probably thought about this - even if just to understand others better. If you do believe, however, it’s likely that you know why you believe, but haven’t given much thought to what makes others believe.
Well, as readers of this blog know, I’m one of the former - I don’t believe in God or gods, but I like to understand people better. Therefore, I’ll try to list the several possible causes of belief in God, and add what I think about each. I mean mostly the Christian God, here, though I believe this list could apply to the other monotheistic religions.
The list isn’t probably complete, so, if you’re not included, please comment. 
- You can’t explain the existence or origin of something, so you believe God must have done it. Once, we didn’t know the cause of a lot of things. Today, the last few remaining questions seem to be “how did the universe come to be” and “what is the origin of life”. This is the God of the Gaps, of course. Much like ancient people believed that Zeus or Thor created lightning, and were wrong, it’s quite likely that these last two questions also have a natural explanation - and, yet, we still make the same mistake that our ancestors did: come up with supernatural explanations, instead of simply admitting that we don’t know, yet.
- The universe seems too complex, too ordered, too beautiful, to have appeared naturally. A variant of the above, really. Things seem much too interconnected to have appeared randomly, and we have everything we need in this world to survive; it almost seems like the universe was made for us. A universe with billions of stars, and we’re on this infinitesimal planet… made for us, indeed. I may write more about this point in the future; it would make this post too long.
- You’ve been educated that way. I was, myself. But we shouldn’t accept “knowledge” on authority. Parents and teachers can lie (e.g. Santa Claus) or simply be wrong (the Earth being in the center of the universe, whites being superior to blacks, etc.). It’s always a bad idea to lose the ablity to question. Besides, as Richard Dawkins says, most people have the religion of their parents, which makes one’s religion a matter of chance - if you’d been born in Saudi Arabia, you’d be a muslim; in India, you’d be a hindu, and so on. If you accept your parents’ religion, it was randomly selected, in a way - so why be so sure it’s the “real” one?
- You feel that your faith in something greater than yourself gives your life purpose and meaning. This is a very common one. Life seems so random, so ephemeral, and so pointless… surely, there’s got to be something more, doesn’t it? Trouble is, this is no more than wishful thinking. We want it to be true, therefore it must be true. Besides, life - wordly life, in our reality - is much more fascinating and meaningful than these people believe.
- You’ve “felt” the presence / touch of God. Another common one. Feelings or sensations, as we know, are subjective. Quite often, we feel what we expect to feel, or what we want to feel - it’s either a placebo effect, or wishful thinking, again. Besides, if the only thing God does is to make us feel “warm inside” from time to time (if you believe in him for just this reason, that’s what you’re implying), then does such a God deserve worship? He’s no more than a “spiritual foot warmer”, after all…
- It’s comforting to believe that someone is taking care of you. It is, indeed - but, if the reason for such comfort doesn’t exist, it can actually be dangerous. It’s like convincing yourself that you have Superman-like powers, or that your (perfectly common) shirt is bullet-proof. If you behave according to those beliefs, you’ll probably injure yourself, or even die. If you don’t, then you don’t really believe, right? Anyway, this is - once again - wishful thinking. Believing (whether it’s true or not) feels good, so you believe.
- You’re afraid of death, and want to believe that it’s not the end, that you simply go to a better place. Wishful thinking, once again. In reality, things don’t become true just because we want them to be true. Alternatively, it may not be about you: sometimes, the death of a loved one causes you to need to believe that the essential part of them isn’t really dead, it’s just gone to a better place, where there is no more suffering, and where you’ll meet them someday.
- You feel that (finite) life in this world is meaningless unless there’s something afterwards. In other words, if, no matter what you do, you die and turn to dust, what difference does it make whatever you do in your life? So you have to believe that there’s something more. However, not only is this wishful thinking (again…), but it’s a limiting view of life. If you believe that the purpose of life is something “exterior”, then this view makes sense; however, if you instead believe that the purpose of life is life itself - that is, that life needs no external justification, and is worth it on its own - not to mention that it can be utterly enjoyable, and that you actually can make a difference while you’re here -, then you can easily see what’s wrong with this view of existence.
- You want to believe that there’s some kind of absolute, perfect justice in the universe, even if only after death. I’d like that, too. Really. You can’t imagine how strongly I wish that was true. I’ve seen monsters living in luxury their entire lives, and never paying for their crimes, and I’ve seen terrible things happen unfairly to good people - sometimes randomly, sometimes caused by the monsters I mentioned. I wish that both would get what they deserve. It would be so… comforting to believe so. Unfortunately, wishing doesn’t make it so. The best thing we can do is try to make things better here, not resign ourselves and hope for some kind of “justice” later.
- You’ve had some unusual experience that made you believe. Not necessarily a miracle (that’s the next one), but an “amazing coincidence”. Say, you prayed for something that was quite improbable, and it happened. The problem here is usually referred to as “counting the hits and ignoring the misses”. I’ll write more about it in the near future.
- You’ve witnessed an apparent miracle. Now, this should be it, right? I mean, if you witness an actual miracle, it means, at least, that the supernatural exists - not necessarily God (or gods), but at the very least there’s something out there, right? So, what are those miracles? Oddly enough, they are always one of the following:
- A disease goes into remission, or actually vanishes, even though doctors were pessimistic;
- Someone “speaks in tongues”, or acting as if they were possessed;
- Something, by random chance, looks like a religious entity (such as Jesus or the Virgin Mary in tree bark, or in a slice of pizza);
- Statues or pictures of religious entities, usually in a church, appear to “cry” or “bleed”;
And that’s it. All but the first are so absurd that they don’t deserve consideration (if all that God does is appear on slices of pizza, then that’s not a god I’d want to worship anyway…). And that one, well, doctors can make mistakes, and there’s still much about the human body and diseases that we don’t know. Still, if it was actually God doing it, and since God has no limits, then why doesn’t he heal amputees? Are those “beyond” God? Does God hate them for some reason?
- You’re desperate for a miracle. Similar to the previous one, but in this case the “miracle” hasn’t happened yet. But you’re desperate, and ready to try anything, including becoming religious - or, possibly, changing religions.
- You see your death getting closer and closer. You don’t really want your existence to end. If something - anything - promises that it won’t, that there is an afterlife, you grab it.
- The example of another believer or believers inspired you. I’d say that this is actually more common in less religious societies, like in Europe, than in more fundamentalist ones, like the US or Muslim countries. I’ve seen it happen myself. Some of the best people I knew in my youth were devout believers (though not fundamentalists), and they radiated happiness and love wherever they went. It’s quite natural for others to be inspired by them. But I’d say that they weren’t good people because of religion; they’d be good people anyway.
- Other believers were there for you when you needed it. Similar to the above, and, again, I know cases like that. Say, you were going through a bad phase, your close family rejected you for some reason, you didn’t have any real friends, and the only people who really cared and tried to help were members of a church. It’s understandable that you may start to believe, too. Still, I maintain that you don’t need God or religion to be a good, caring human being. There are good and bad theists, and good and bad atheists.
- You like the sense of community that comes from belonging to a church. Again, similar. In this particular case, curiously, you don’t even need God; it’s the group itself, and its activities, that makes you feel like a part of something.
- Being told what to do and what to think comforts you. Sad, but true. A lot of people don’t want the burden and the responsibility of having to think and decide for themselves, and anyone or anything who relieves them of that burden and responsability will have their hearts and minds. This doesn’t happen only with religion, of course. Many people join groups - religious or otherwise - just so they can be told what to do and think.
- While reading the Bible, something made you believe. I almost didn’t include this one, as I’m convinced that reading the Bible, critically and dispassionately, and in its entirety, will unconvert at least ten people for each one it helps converting. Almost everyone who reads the Bible already believes; I’ve never heard of someone believing just because they read the Bible. Even most Christians are forced to ignore most of it.
And that’s it. I’ve tried to be comprehensive, but it’s possible that I missed a couple of reasons.
Now, please be honest: if you’re a believer, do you fit into one (or more) of the above? Or is your case different? I’d like to know.
Add to:
Related posts:
Not a funny question, a good one. And everybody will probably have different answers, and probably complicated ones. I’m sorry if this might be a bit long, but I’m going to answer yes or no and why for all of these.
1. The unexplained. It’s always intrigueing and yes it plays a part. People have explained things that used to be considerred “MAGIC” and that the sun sets because the earth rotates, it’s not a God that burns all of its heat at us. But nobody seems to know where life itself came from. I find it hard to think that it came from nothing.
2.The universe and it’s vast complexity. That plays a part too. It’s not that it couldn’t have happened naturally. I am of the belief that God and Nature have a lot in common. It doesn’t stop there though. I’m not of the belief that the universe has it’s end. Some people think that the big bang theory disproves God, but it really doesn’t. After all, when you have a really good idea, a light bulb goes off in your head too. Who says there was only one big bang anyways… I think people have a hard time contemplating infinity, infact, I don’t think we CAN. Besides that, I also believe that there are more than just 1 “Dimensions” (afterlife and what not) in fact I think there’s an infinite number of them as well. So yes, I think the universe is so vast that an infite number of possibilities actually HAS to be in some way, God being one of them.
3.Education. Yes I went to sunday school. (Religious school on sundays) But I actually denounced God for a few years. After all, who were other humans to teach me what to think about a God?
4.Faith giving purpose. No. Lots of people who have all the faith in the world don’t do jack to help others. And lots of people who don’t believe at all do tons. Faith doesn’t give you a purpose in life, your own actions do. What does faith give you? That’s a good question.
5. Feeling the presence. I’ve heard of it happening, but I haven’t felt anything personally.
6.Comfort in being taken care of. Yes, it’s comforting to believe that life is not the end. Being taken care of, though, no. I’m no safer than anybody else.
7. Afraid to die. Everybody is to some degree. I like breathing, and being with my wife. I don’t know what it would be like to live without those things, and I don’t KNOW what happens after life, I just believe it doesn’t end there. (There’s a difference)
8. Finite = meaningless. Nope. If there isn’t a God, then there’s still meaning. Humanity has come a long way, and so far there’s no immediate threat to us.
9. Perfect Justice. Now that’s a tough one. I don’t know where I stand on this, because in all honesty if there is a God, a heaven, and a hell, I may visit the latter. Plus, I can’t comprehend “Perfect”
10. Unusual experience. Yes, I’ve had a few strange experiences. You could call them coincidence of course, but despite my own doubts, I believe they weren’t.
11. Myracles. Never seen one. (But that doesn’t mean they never/don’t happen.)
12. Desperate for a myracle. No, not desperate. I think everybody would love to see one though.
13. Death getting closer. No, I’m still a bit young. Though my habbits will make me die sooner, I’ve been closer to death when I wasn’t a theist.
14.Other believers inspired. Yes they have. Muhatma Ghandi is a big one. Maybe they would have been great people without religion, but I really don’t think Mother Theresa would have done all she did.
15.Other believers were there for me. No. Yes they were, but that’s not why I believe. I know some believers that justify war in a daily basis.
16. The sense of community that comes with church. Hell no. I don’t believe that God is confined to a church, not one bit. Plus the last time I went to church, a few of my friends convinced me to go with them, and the preacher had everybody hold hands while he talked about Iraq. He litterally prayed to God to … and I quote “Send a missile down from heaven and into the bunkers and kill every last one of them.” Not that all churches are bad, but that’s an example of people hating through religion, an absolute oxymoron. PLUS REALLY SAD.
17.Comfort in being told what to do. No. I know a lot of people who do. Some people who’ve even joined the military because of that very reason. I like having my own free will, and though temptation tells me to do some things, I usually make the decision that doesn’t hurt people.
18.Bible made me believe. No. The bible is just one writing out of many, and many of them have basic fundamental similarities. It wasn’t any one of them that made me believe, it was the undeniable similarities that any one of any faith, or none, can embrace.
Pedro,
I love your posts… and this is another good one. However, one day I would love to hear your take on a religion like Buddhism (although there are those who might call it a philosophy rather than a religion).
I was raised a Roman Catholic and for many of the same reasons I have read in your posts I eventually said goodbye to that (what a religion considering my mother told me she thought I was going to hell when I said I became Buddhist!). However, I did find Buddhism made a lot of sense to me, and it is not a theistic religion, so I don’t know how it fits into your philosophy.
At any rate, keep up the good posts! I laugh at some and cry at others, but I find them all interesting.
The short answer which accounts for all but the smallest of a fraction of a single percentage of the “faithful” is : fear.
Fear of responsibility for their own life.
Fear of life itself.
Fear of ignorance (so they celebrate it and call it “faith.”
Fear of honesty.
Fear of living.
Fear of death (as you mention)
Fear of meaning.
Fear of sincerity.
Fear of others. (I believe therefore I am better… so goes the reasoning anyway)
Fear of self. (So they adopt religion which denies the self..)
And of course the greatest fear of all: fear of truth.
The other reasons offered are at best excuses for this fear..
TX, a good arguement.
But certain amount of faith can make some people fearless, of death.
Faith does not equal ignorance… many smart people have faith.
Having faith (some may say) can give you the courage to BE honest, to keep living when it seems that death is a way out, to be sincere, and to NOT be afraid of others.
Say if you’re catholic, and you have faith in that God, how can you be afraid of responsibility, when if you sin too much you go to hell. The Catholic God is supposed to not want anybody to go to hell, and therefore it’s your responsibility not to sin too much.
If you’re a Buddhist, you have faith that you’ll live a better life (or at least make other peoples lives less hurtfull) if you don’t lie.
Faith is a glass pillar, forged over thousands of years, such mastery has been put into its creation that it refracts light in beautiful ways, making it appear solid, but in reality it is paper thin, the smallest force; logic, reason, could easily destroy it.
But people fear that the glass pillar that lifts them so high, may break, so they build concrete walls of illogic, blindness (darkness may conceal, but light blinds forever) and thoughtlessness to protect this core of their existence.
They become sheep.
Logic and reason are marble pillars, beautiful, solid, and while they may be cold and hard, they will support any weight and hold up to even the strongest of forces.
Samuel Clemens put it best when speaking of faith: “Fatih is believing what you know ain’t true.”
Kren,
You seem to be accepting illusion as fact, propaganda as accurate reporting, and falsehoods as truths. Faith is not the beacon of hope and lollypops you describe by any stretch of the imagination.. That said, you are correct that faith is not equal to ignorance, though faith does necessitate ignorance. Faith is seeing truth and denying it because you don’t like the truth. Faith is when one is faced with your beliefs conflicting with reality you pretend that reality must be in error.
Faith tells you that reason must be wrong, that critical thought is evil, that evil is good, and that anyone who believes differently is evil.. FAith tells you that you can never be free, that you are never actually responsible for your life, that you are merely a worthless flawed and evil creature not worthy of existence.
Faith is willful ignorance in the face of certain knowledge.
[quote post="150"]Faith is seeing truth and denying it because you don’t like the truth.[/quote]
I…I’m stunned, thats brilliant.
If that’s what you think faith is, that’s fine.
Kren,
I freely admit there are many types of Buddhists out there and they may have a different take on this, but I was taught that not lying because it will help others (or not be hurtful of oneself) is not really the reason we try not to lie. Buddhism, as I have been taught and practice, is about being fully present in each moment and being honest about what that is. As soon as you start to add motives to your actions (such as I don’t want to hurt that person or myself) you are separating yourself from the moment. Certainly, those are good reasons for not lying, and I can’t deny that it is a noble reason for not lying, but that’s not the real reason for lying.
If I have faith, it is that it is possible to be in the moment and be fully aware of my connection to all that is inherent in that.
Be Here Now, and The Power of Now were good books.
I went to a buddhist temple a few times and a professor who taught about Buddhism actually told me that when it comes to speaking in general, a Buddhists view is that what you say should always be an attempt to help others, and avoid hurting them.
I really like the “God of the Gaps” phrase; I’ll probably use that one! Concise buzzword that ultimately captures a lot of meaning.
For a more in-depth look at this question read Richard Dawkins stunning book “The God Delusion”. Truly awesome.
Jim,
You say: “If I have faith, it is that it is possible to be in the moment and be fully aware of my connection to all that is inherent in that.”
If we take this to be a more general claim, that of “if someone has faith, then it is possible to be in the moment and fully aware of his/her connection to all that in inherent in that”
We see that this is either absurdly false in the straight-froward reading, else true without the antecedent phrase.
It is absurdly false in the sense that faith even allows awareness, must less that such awareness is inherent to faith. Faith is directly opposed to awareness, as it is a tool of illusion. One imagines that the world is not how it is, that there is an old guy in a white robe sitting on a cloud, and that reason, critical thought, and reality are all in error when there is a conflict between them and the desired belief. Faith is directly opposed to reason, for the application of reason necessarily destroys faith, since the application of reason brings about knowledge, and faith is wholly incompatible with knowledge (after all if you know something there is no point in faith…)
It is true without the antecedent in that we can all connect to that which surrounds us if we desire, without any need of distracting illusions, false beliefs, and absurd complexities which quite frankly are separate from, are other to our being in the now, our being able to connect to all that which is ACTUALLY around us.
Consider this analogy. You choose to believe that there are invisible square circles with sentience that fly around you all day long. Take this as axiomatic. Now with this always in your mind, with this as the taking off point for your world view, and every aspect of your experiencing of the world, do you honestly believe that all things interpreted through this filter, through this axiom, will be accurate? Do you believe that this clearly absurd axiom/filter reveals the world around you?
Also, how does introducing baseless contradictory conplex and illusory barriers between us and the world in which we live create a closer and more revealing connection to that world?
TXStorm,
Apparently I misspoke (miswrote?). When I said “If I have faith, it is that it is possible to be in the moment and be fully aware of my connection to all that is inherent in that,” I did not mean your rewording of the statement.
My faith is that it is possible for me to be in each moment. I fully recognize that I am not always this way. I do things in a thoughtless manner, I say things I do not mean, I brush by when I should stop. However, I have faith (or would it make more sense to say “I believe”?) that with practice I can be more fully in each moment. It’s not faith that allows me to be in the moment, it’s faith that tells me that my work to be in the moment is not in vain. Will I ever 100% be in the moment? I don’t know, I will try. But if I did not believe that I could do it, why even bother?
What I think is that my use of the word faith was different than yours. I got the impression that you were referring to “faith in some type of other.” I was not. Maybe it’s just semantics, but I think not. My faith is in MY ability to be more fully present, not in some other awareness or person who will make me present.
Also, while I agree with your assessment of faith vs. knowledge given your definition of faith, there are some things that are unknowable until they are experienced. Before you react, I am talking about things like what I would do if I saw a person in a burning building that I might be able to help. I have ‘faith’ that I would do my best to help this person. Until I am in that position, I don’t know. The same for being fully present in the moment. I have faith that it is possible. Until I do it, or it is proved otherwise (and I am open to this proof if it exists, while I truthfully have no conception of what it would look like) I will continue to believe that it is possible, and therefore work toward it.
Hopefully this clarifies the context in which I was using the word faith because in truth, I find nothing else to disagree with in your post.
And Kren, I’m sure you know this, having spoke to a professor of Buddhism (which I must confess is not necessarily the same as a practitioner, considering that every buddhist teacher I have known has made it clear that their role is not so much to ‘teach’ me buddhism, but to do what they can to help me ‘experience’ it) that there are a number of different sects in Buddhism, broken off from three main branches (Tibetan, Mahayana, and Therevadan) and there is rarely a “definitive” answer to a question. There is no “Buddhist Bible” that is canon for everyone. There are various common texts, but the translations and interpretations often vary widely.
On top of that, I don’t necessarily disagree that helping and not hurting is a guideline for speaking. But it’s more because we are not separate. If I say something that hurts you, then that is no more than hurting myself (before anyone says anything… this does not mean we are egocentric and only concerned about the effect on us!). It is more to say that saything something hurtful is hurtful. Period. Since you and I are not separate, there really is not any “you” and “I.”
Thank you for your comments. Every time I am called upon to clarify what I mean I learn.
Jim, the professor tell me about Buddhism having differing sections. I already knew there was no Buddhist bible. Thanks for the insight.
The only one I can’t agree with is the final reason:
” I’m convinced that reading the Bible, critically and dispassionately, and in its entirety, will unconvert at least ten people for each one it helps converting.”
I have studied the Bible for many years now and I have yet to find any of the contradictions and proof of a hateful God that atheists are fond of pointing out. I would love to hear from any one here who could enlighten me a little bit. Im not asking this so that I can explain why any of you are wrong. Far from it. I would TRULY like to discuss it for my own benefit.
A bit of background on me first: Raised Christian but around my early teens found a dislike of the religion because of the people I knew. In my late teens I started to study buddhism and found it very “applicable” to living a happy life. A few years ago I returned to the Bible to read it without judgement. I found the teachings of Jesus to be VERY BUDDHIST. Jesus said that “You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings.” The ways of living a good life that I first started to understand from Buddhism, I also found in the Bible. So by default I am a Christian because I follow the teachings of Jesus.
Hi Joshua,
Here’s a link which should help you to understand the atheist’s claims that the God of the bible is both hateful and self-contradicting.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
Bob.
PS. Just wanted to make a point about your last sentence… “So by default I am a Christian because I follow the teachings of Jesus.” Would you consider yourself a follower of your school teachers? They taught you things - but I imagine you don’t consider yourself to be a School-Teacher Evangelist.
I imagine many people follow the principles supposedly elucidated by Jesus who definitely don’t consider themselves to be Christian.
Jim,
The first step would be to read it without a particular desire. I strongly suspect that is the crucial difference, that being that in fact it is not being read critically and dispassionately.
BTW you employ a strawman when you assert that those who do not buy into the illusions must believe in a hateful god. In fact, the fact that rational individuals do not accept irrational belief in an impossible non-existent entity necessitates that they do not believe in that god.
As for the contradictions, even an introductory course in basic logic will make those perfectly clear. Take omnipotence for a fine example. If this impossible being could exist, and were omnipotent as the judeo-xn description of “god” necessitates, then it would have to be able to create something it could not lift and be able to lift everything it could possible create. Here is a simple straight-forward contradiction that is unresolvable while keeping the judeo-xn notion of a “god.”
You could also of course look into the problem of evil, which necessitates that this “god” could not possibly be good were it possible for it to exist, which also necessitates that the judeo-xn conception of a “god” is an impossible one.
Then too we could note that since the xn bible is entirely fiction, created by men over time, edited for convenience and power over others, with no basis at all for any of the claims within it, that the claims that it is “the word of god” are equally baseless. More evil has been done in the name of Xnty than any other single reason in history, yet the Xn “god” is supposed to be good… surely we can agree that this is an inherent contradiction given that the Xn “god” is supposed to be all powerful and all good…
If the xn bible were to be read critically and without the preconceived biases, by those familiar with even the rudimentary understanding of reason, it would indeed unconvert each such reader. Of this there can be no doubt.
TXStorm,
I certainly hope your post was intended for Joshua, for it’s his arguments you seem to be refuting in your last post. Incidentally, I agree wholeheartedly with what you had to say in that post.
Sorry Jim, that last post should have been directed to Joshua. As for your own comments, I was indeed mislead by your definiton of faith, which rather than being faith per se, is simply conditional belief. Conditional belief, especially well founded conditional belief does not share the necessary and necessarily harmful characteristics of faith (which have been described previously). For instance, it is not “faith” that explains a belief in the earth rotating and the sun being visible tomorrow, rather this is well founded conditional belief. Now if one believed that “god” had told them that the world was going to end tomorrow and the sun would never again be visible to anyone, this would be a find example of faith: baseless contrary to reason belief..
I love TXStrom’s conclusion that it’s all based on fear, because if you think about it really is.
I hate to be a wanker, but I am. Those who are a little bit religious area little bit stupid those who are really religious are really stupid. How could you actually believe such garbage you stupid ignorant cunts?
Get over your divine murderer and stop attributing all your achievements to this figment.
People are really really really stupid and we all know it. Thus god exists.
WOW.
Jenssen,
Smart people can be very religious too. So no, if a person is really religious, that doesn’t make them really stupid.
A divine murderer is something some people believe in, yes. But not all people who believe in God take all those bible stories as fact. So you’re judging a large portion of humanity as “stupid ignorant cunts” falsely.
Doing my best not to judge people is something I actually picked up from religion. It’s not that I went around judging everybody every chance I would get, and then that changed because I became religious. It’s that not judging being a core teaching in a few religions made me realize just how important a lesson it can be.
How can I believe in a God? I had a couple of personal experiences that gave me enough “evidence” to. The strange thing about such experiences is that they were profound to me, but as time passed I had to struggle to keep it in mind.
That concept can be found in the Bible. (No, I’m not preaching) Like when Moses shows the Jewish all of these miracles, but they forget about it so quickly, and begin worshipping golden figurines. The correspondance between that (and other sotries) in the bible and my own life have convinced me. I wasn’t quick to have something to belong to, or to believe in something to explain the universe (which it doesn’t) I was simply realizing even if it’s not true to other people, even though I had thought it was proposterous at one time, it was something I believed in regardless.
Your introduction hit the bull’s eye about a thought that has been stewing in my head for the past few weeks: why do people believe in God? I know they have some sort of rational justification in their own minds, but whenever I try to understand someone addressing their reasons for belief, they’ve just gone in circles… I reached the endpoint too fast, and the endpoint is when someone of faith says, “You have to have faith.”
This list is a great list; I think you brought up a variety of great reasons to believe. I pondered on some more than others, but overall I think this is good start–and I mean that in the highest of compliments! I’ve noticed that you do follow-ups to some articles and this one seems like it may get that kind of treatment.
Very thought provoking!
Kren,
There is a good reason why these “miracles” do not stick with you: they are fleeting illusions.
reality does not go away.. ilusion does. The emotional reaction to mistaken assumptions fades, reality stays the same…
Drop the assumptions that illusions are real and the problems all disappear..
I too have found these question sometimes in my life, being a non believer in a community of Christians. The one nagging thought I kept on having is if it is the true religion, shouldn’t the conclusion point to it if you ponder about the truth with the utmost sincerity? The true “way of being” will not prevent you to think and debate whether or not it is true, but rather facilitate your thought so that you can arrive at the same conclusion yourself.
Well written thinking, I enjoyed it.
Bob,
Thank you for the link. I have some reading ahead of me! What I meant by my last statement: I don’t follow the teachings of Jesus necessarily because I just believe in Him. I very much see the validity in his teachings and so I follow them. Because I accept his teachings, in a way I accept Him.
So would I consider myself a follower of a school teacher? If I accepted what they were teaching as truth then of course I would be a student/desciple. Haven’t you ever heard in a school setting, “you should take so-and-so’s class, he/she is a great teacher!” Isn’t that evangelism? Usually when people make statements like this its not with the intention of “evangelizing”, but out of sincerity.
Many people would hate to be labeled a “christian”, but what is a label anyways? A label typically describes the contents of something. So if some one exudes the essence of a teaching, couldn’t you label them a follower of that teaching? In fact, before modern-day, organized education people would indeed follow teacher/scholars/philosophers/profits etc.. around to absorb their knowledge. Im sure they would say, “I am a follower of . . . . .”
TXstorm,
The “heavier than God can lift” “contradiction” is a gripe with God in general and not specific to judeo-christian religion. Anyhow here are my thoughts:
That idea only makes sense in a physical world. If God exists, it is in both a “spiritual” and physical realm. So using reasoning that only takes in to consideration physical ideas seems, to me at least, flawed from the start. Its sort of like trying to figure out the surface area of a Rectangular Prism , but only knowing the dimension of one side - you can’t. My point is that if God is “spirit” then there is no mass; no mass: no weight; no weight: nothing God can or can’t “lift”.
Although, having said that, I could go in to theology and explain away the contradiction. . . but I wont for now. Also, TXstorm, could you elaborate on the “because there is evil God cannot exist” statement? Doesn’t free will allow evil to exist? Wouldn’t a “good” God allow for free will? Wouldn’t it be “evil” for God to not allow a choice for “evil”? Thats enough for one post.
TX:
My experiences weren’t illusions. I can’t say that they prove God to exist, because they happened to me, not anybody else. The experience didn’t just go away either. In fact to me they would happen when I was on the verge of doing something wrong. Maybe I have an overactive concience that makes me experience out of the ordinary things when I figure I’m about to do something wrong.
Can God create something He can’t lift?
IS A GREAT question, me and some friends have all thought about it. My only response was humans. If evil is the opposite of such a bieng, and humans were given free will to choose evil if they wanted, then God has already created something “HE” can’t “Lift.”
That’s just one way of looking at it though… what makes it such a good question is humans beliefs in limits. We think about lifting things, in a physical sense. The question is… is there something God can’t do?
Sure there is… make human’s decisions. If you’re human, you know that you make your own. If you happen to be religouse, than you have to come to the conclusion that God let you make your own decisions. Unless you are of the belief that God knows what decision you’ll make WAY ahead of time… which isn’t too far off of a thought if you wente to high school and could call, when you saw a drunk girl and a jock together, what thier decision might be that night. Only amplify that by a billion times and that God is justified in knowing all… like in Groundhogs Day, where Bill Murray says “Maybe God’s just been around so long, he knows everything.”
If you’re not religouse, then you don’t do “Bad” things because you have determined them to be wrong because they hurt other people, and you wouldn’t want to be hurt in that way.
If you ARE religouse, you might say that you didn’t do so because you thought God wouldn’t want you to. Maybe your God is your own perpective on Right and Wrong.
Joshua,
So pick another of the near infinite contradictions inherent to the judeo-xn notion of a god. The contradictions are in no way dependent upon a physical world, and cannot be logically exaplained away since they are inherent to the notions of omnipotence, or to the combinations of characteristics such as omnibenevolent and a creator.
An example of this is found in your statement: “My point is that if God is “spirit” then there is no mass; no mass: no weight; no weight: nothing God can or can’t “lift”.”
This clearly denies the omnipotence characteristic which most notions of a god include, certainly it is explicit in the judeo-xn notion of a god. You have not merely said that there is some small characteristic that this god cannot have (though this alone would be sufficient to disprove omnipotence) but you have excluded all of the physical realm entirely from any interaction by this impossible entity. No sea partings.. no intervention to save children etc.
If you will look at the comments on the morality post you will find a more indepth explanation of the refutation of the free will excuse as explanation for evil. Suffice it to say that an omniptent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of all COULD NOT choose to create a world in which evil exist. It would have the option of a world in which free will exists but in which no one actually chooses evil, but obviously this is not the world in which we find ourselves. And of course that does not take into account all of the other acts, which if there is no controlling or creating being are accidents and tragedies, but with such a force are absolutely acts of evil.
Kren,
You have just denies at least two of the vital characteristics of your god, thus necessarily denied your god exists at all… How do you resolve that particular problem?
(not to mention that you still have not resolved the initial contradiction.. 
)
TXStorm,
Back to lifting stuff: My point was that in order to reason we must have all of the facts. We obviously don’t understand anything other than the physical world so its a bit hard to ponder this “contradiction”. Its not that God cant have an influence on physical things its just he isn’t limited like us. Let me try presenting it through theology then. . .
The Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth. Obviously, if He did so, he could move whatever he wanted. The Bible also says that Jesus was God in man form. Though Jesus was “God” he was also man with all of our own physical limitations. So while God the spirit could lift anything, God the man could not. He can both create something He can lift and something He cannot.
Also there is this verse: “then Jesus told them, “I assure you, if you have faith and don’t doubt, you can do things like this and much more. You can even say to this mountain, ‘May God lift you up and throw you into the sea,’ and it will happen.” - Mat. 21:21
So again we see this idea that God the man couldn’t lift a mountain, but God the spirit can.
Joshua,
Will you accept that sound reasoning and only sound reasoning leads us to true conclusions? I ask because your arguments are logically fallacious.
First, we have all of the RELEVANT facts, which is all we need. We do not need to be omniscient in order to consider these facts such as the impossibility of the judeo-xn god. Consider the analogy of the square circle. We need not know anything at all about triangles, or goats, or plumbing or the like, rather we need only know the nature of sound reasoning, the nature of squares, and the nature of circles. This is sufficient to prove that square circles do not exist.
So too with the judeo-xn notion of a “god.” We need only know the meaning of “omnipotent,” “omniscient,”"Omnibenevolent,” “creator of all,” along with the nature of sound reasoning.
Now returning to the fallacies, you appeal to (pseudo) authority (the xn bible), which itself assumes (but of course does not prove) the existence of this impossible notion. This of course is sufficient to render the argument of no merit, as is always true of any argument which contains even one logical fallacy.
But wait, there’s more..
By appealing to the “three-in-one” notion, you introduce equivocation. Instead of referring to only one as the contradiction does, you appeal to one in one case, then another in another. So when you say “he can both create something he can lift and something that he cannot” (sic) you are not referring to the same individual with each use of “he.”
As for the last paragraph, it does not demonstrate what you seem to believe that it does. But regardless it does not address the point. I can toss a pencil into the sea but that does not mean I can toss a car into the sea….
If you are hung up on the physical world, then try any of the other infinite contractions which arise from the claim of omnipotence. Can this impossible entity create a universe which contains everything, but in which it does not exist? (None of this “outside of the universe” nonsense.. “Universe” is used to refer to all that is, in other words: reality.
Or “can this god-notion cause itself to not exist?” If the latter then this god-notion is not indestructable, which is a pretty darn important failing in the omniptence category… On the other hand if this god-notion couldnot destroy itself, there is another pretty darn important failing in the omniptence category..
Sound reasoning should lead to true conclusions, but who is to say that your reasoning is sound? You said that this “contradiction” was specific to the judeo-christian God. Having said that, you have decided to show how this God specifically cannot exist. If this is the case, you cannot ignore his stated attributes in the Bible and claim that you are using sound reasoning.
What you fail to realize is the judeo-christian God is a trinity. He is 3 but also 1. You prefer the idea of this God as one because it supports your argument. I did not create the idea of the trinity to “introduce equivocation.”, but just brought up that this is how “God” is described in the Bible. This is in no way equivocation. It only shows that you have little understanding of the God that you are trying to “logically” disprove.
This was my point exactly. In order for the “contradiction” to hold you have to ignore the attributes of God that are clearly explained in the Bible. If you are not happy with this 3-in-1 idea, then you are not applying this “contradiction” to the judeo-christian God. The problem with this “contradiction” is that it assumes too much. This God is not 1 but 3.
What if I put aside this god for a moment and change focus to the Hindu idea of Brahman? He is in everything and yet He is everything. He is the object, the lifter of the object, and the universe in which the lifting is taking place. This “contradiction” doesn’t really work with His description either. What God is being disproved here?
“ ‘Universe’ is used to refer to all that is, in other words: reality.” Actually many cosmologists today are talking about a “multiverse” full of many universes. At the forefront of theoretical physics is the idea of new dimensions and multiple universes. Allot of these theories are coming forward to try and explain the “chaos” at the quantum level. Some of humanities greatest minds are pondering these ideas, so is it really that absurd for there to be the possibility of an “outside of the universe”?
Joshua,
Look up equivocation. You are employing a text book example of it. Appealling to the xn bible as an “authority” simply introduces yet another logical fallacy.
As for this 1 in 3 silliness, do you then also assert, as you necessarily must the following claims:
1+1=6
1-3=0
3+3=2
If you are not willing to make these claims then they stand as clear counter-examples to your one in three position. Or you could simply take the same “aspect” of this absurd god notion and ask the question pertaining ONLY to that one aspect. Anything short of that is equivocation.
You ask “who is to say that the reasoning is sound” which can only be asked if one fails to understand reason itself. Sound reasoning is not a mere matter of opinion as you try to imply, but rather can be objectively determined and proved. Feel free to take the arguments to any logician to be scrutinized, or familiarize yourself with sound reasoning and note that in fact no error exists in the arguments.
I take it from your red herring that you are not going to actually address the scenario as spelled out? I explained the usage of “universe” in this context so that you would not be confused and waste time on nonsensical and fruitless fatally flawed arguments. Your response is to yet again equivocate..
Or “can this god-notion cause itself to not exist?” If the latter then this god-notion is not indestructable, which is a pretty darn important failing in the omniptence category… On the other hand if this god-notion couldnot destroy itself, there is another pretty darn important failing in the omniptence category..
Just so that we are perfectly clear here are some explanations of the fallacy of equivocation and how they apply to your usage of this fallacy:
“Equivocation occurs when a key word is used with two or more different meanings in the same argument. ”
You use “god” to refer at one point to merely the ethereal thing you claim exists, here you claim that this “god” can lift anythying.
In another place you use “god” to refer to a mortal human that died 2 millenia ago (if he ever existed at all and is not merely the combination of many of the figures in “revealed” religions of the time as seems most likely to be the case). This being is limited by the physcial attributes of humans, and therefore is very limited in ability to lift objects, and also is clearly not identical to the first non-entity to which you referred.
There is no doubt left that this clearly meets all of the criteria for being equivocation, so clear that it makes a fine text book example.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm
“In addition to the fallacies of relevance and presumption we examined in our previous lessons, there are several patterns of incorrect reasoning that arise from the imprecise use of language. An ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct meanings. The inferential relationship between the propositions included in a single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the same meaning in each of them. The fallacies of ambiguity all involve a confusion of two or more different senses.”
As we can see from the previous explanation, you are using the word “god” in more than one sense, at one time referring to a creator of all that can in theory lift anything, and in another to a mere mortal that cannot lift much at all. The two are not identical by any stretch of the imagination.
Consider if you will the same question posed to the first meaning that you use of “god” without referring to any differing meanings. Can you offer a meaningful response to the inherent contradictions without employing such fallacies?
And what of the other examples which necessarily demonstrate the impossibility of the judeo-xn god?
And before I forget you chose to employ other errors of reasoning as well in your mischaracterizations. While I have referred to the judeo-xn notion of a “god”, it is not true that this is specific to merely this notion of god. Any notion of any entity which is supposed to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, creator of all, sill suffer exactly the same fate, that is the notion will necessarily be self-defeating.
All other aspects introduced are red herrings, used to draw attention away from the impossibility of the supposed entity, and away from the lack of rational, reasonable, and real support for such an impossible being.
You really don’t need to be condescending. It becomes impossible to have a civil debate when any participant begins to act in this way. “Equivocation” is to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself to an idea by using ambiguous language. As I explained, in order for this “contradiction” to apply to the God described in the Bible, one must ignore his description.
You stated that you are specifically attacking the God of the Bible. In this case, His stated attributes must be allowed to defend Himself. You will not allow this. This makes absolutely no sense. The trinity is not a matter of “1+1=6″. It is a “trinity”. 1+1+1=3. It is a description that even fits us humans. We have a body, a mind, and spirit. These 3 “things” are united into one being. Even if you don’t believe in the “spirit”, you probably would still observe that you have a body and a mind. A sort of “dinity” if you will. What more can I say about this? There really can be no further debate under these circumstances.
These are great things to ponder. I really enjoy them. However, I see no point in continuing if I cant even use God’s description. Please do not once again say, “Appealling to the xn bible as an “authority” simply introduces yet another logical fallacy.” Let me say one last time: You chose to dispute the God specifically of the Bible so you cannot ignore His attributes and maintain a solid argument.
No need for the emotional blackmail attempts, especially since they fail against anyone familiar with reason.
Concealing the truth and avoiding committing oneself to an idea are irrelevent motivations to equivocation. The fact is that your argument pivots on equivocation as clearly demonstrated, and no amount of increased usage of logical fallacies will ever change that.
I never once stated that I am “attacking the God of the Bible” (SIC). I pointed out that if the four criteria set out for the judeo-xn notion of a god are examined critically we can easily see that no such entity can possibly exist. The notions are inherently contradictory, as clearly and repeatedly demonstrated and thus far unanswered.
You say that I will not allow “his attributes.” Let’s look at this: 1. This is absurd and false as I have clearly spelled out the judeo-xn notion of a god. (BTW if you are following this argument you might notice that in fact the come lately notion of “3in1″ is not original nor crucial to the judeo-xn notion of a god.
2. You beg the question by assuming existence, which of course is your conclusion.
If you cannot discuss the matter honestly, civilly, and rationally then certainly you should quit because I am not inclined to abandon these simply to save your world view and false belief in an impossible being.
That said, let me try yet again to explain the notion of equivocation and point out yet again that you have not addressed the other examples which do not refer in any sense at all and are not answered in any way at all by this false “3 in 1″ nonsesne.
Assign each god a letter. X is “god” y is “the “holy” spirit, and Z is “jebus”
Okay now your argument is this. X can create a stone that Z cannot lift. Z cannot create a stone at all.
Do you see now that you are in fact using the term “god” in more than one meaning in order to give the mere illusion that you have somehow resolved the inherent contradiction?
Now I have posted this alternative contradiction so as to avoid this game you are playing with equivocation and appeals to false authority, yet you have not addressed it at all, I strongly suspect that I know why. However here it is again so if you are actually desirous of having an HONEST REASONABLE discussion you need not go back to the other posts to see it again:
“can this god-notion cause itself to not exist?” If the latter then this god-notion is not indestructable, which is a pretty darn important failing in the omniptence category… On the other hand if this god-notion couldnot destroy itself, there is another pretty darn important failing in the omniptence category..
As to your final comment, you ought not have started your post with comments about condescension if you intended to end it with condescension. Moreover you ought not have adopted that tone given that your statement is absurdly false and intellectually dishonest. To whit: the four necessary elements of the JUDEO-XN notion of a god are:
1. Omnipotent
2. Omniscient
3. Omnibenevolent
4. Creator of all.
I have not diverged from this accurate description nor does this description fail to capture the essence of the judeo-xn god.
You complain that I will not abandon reason simply because not abandoning reason leads to clear irrefutable evidence that your notion of a god cannot exist. Even if I were to be dishonest and pretend the reality is not reality and falsehoods are true, that would only mean that you managed to get me to agree with your claims, it would not change the fact that the contradictions remain, and teh judeo-xn notion of a god simply cannot exist. Appealing to another application of another set of logical fallacies in no way supports the use of any particular logical fallacy.
Imagine if I were to respond to you that you are mistaken because it says so in the satanic bible (which I assume you would consider the polar opposite to your bible, though in truth a logic text is in fact the polar opposite, still for this example th sb will work). Would you accept that you must be in error? Of course not, because I am simply appealing to yet another text without any basis for the argument itself. This is exactly what you are doing here. I can appeal to all of the fallacies made by intro to logic students as well, just as you appeal to the fallacies written into the bible (which itself is circular reasoning), and I guarentee that you will not accept that as a sound foundation upon which to build an argument.
So why on earth do you seem to honestly expect me and everyone reading this to accept your arbitrary double standard?
Oh, and as to the math problems, they were pointing out the absurdity of the 1=3 notion and that even you do not accept it, as you confirmed with your corrected math examples.
If 1=3 then necessarily 1+1=6. So when you denied this, you denied the premise that 1=3, as well you should have via modus Tolens.
You can either claim that 1=3, as you want to in the attempt to salvage the judeo-xn notion of god (which in fact then makes the notion merely that of xnty, and a trivial version of that form) and then necessarily deny arithematic. Or you can accept arithematic as accurate, and thereby deny the claim that 1=3.
No other option exists within the realm of honesty, reason, and reality.
I didn’t respond to your “can this god-notion cause itself to not exist”(SIC). question because we have not finished this current discussion. Why should we go on to another “contradiction” when we have not finished this debate? The problem with this “contradiction” is that it cannot be resolved with the assumed description of “God”. When I offer the idea of the trinity you call this equivocation.
If the problem is that the trinity doesn’t resolve this lifting “contradiction” then I would have no reason to continue. However, it does indeed resolve it. With time dedicated to writing post upon post I feel that the trinity would also resolve the other mentioned “contradictions”. I am interested to know your opinion of the idea of man as a trinity that I explained in my last post.
I should add that the “3in1″ notion of God is indeed crucial to the judeo-christian notion of god. Even though this is clearly stated in the Bible, this idea is also observable in mankind as I mentioned in my last post. You in no way need to accept the authority of the Bible for this idea to stand. Although, as a side note; if you will not accept the authority of the Bible then you shouldn’t use notions like, “Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent ( even a word?), and Creator of all” as proof that God cannot exist. What if God isn’t that powerful at all? Im sure we could reason a “god” into existence that doesn’t have these “contradictions”.
What then?
This “arbitrary double standard” (SIC) you mention was created by yourself in accordance with a situation that has not occurred. I did not state that according to the Bible you are wrong; I simply stated that the description of the God of the Bible resolves the contradiction. If the God of the Bible (taken the authority is accepted) does not contradict itself, then basis of non-acceptance cannot be on contradiction. Granted, this is indeed circular reasoning, but so is the notion of rejecting God because of his description in a book that you give no authority to in the first place.
I would like to add that I am enjoying all of this. I have never spent this much time debating. I do thank you for the workout. I wish I had more free time to dedicate to this.
Josua,
You can “feel” that your use of equivocation should not count as equivocation simply because your desired conclusion is defeated otherwise, but that does not change reality.
You pretend that holding your claims to the exact same standard of reason and evidence means that *I* have created a double standard, but of course you offer no evidence of this false assertion, though contrarily ample evidence has been offered supporting the facts that your argument pivots on equivocation and that you are employing at least two standards in an effort to save the failed position.
The refutations stand so far completely unaddressed. Feel free to actually address them at any point. I cannot recommend strongly enough that you seek out some basic understanding of at least the more basic elements of sound reasoning, for as long as you adhere to the belief that your arguments are excluded from honest examination and application of the rules of reason there is no point in any discussion.
You may also want to review the usage of “sic” so as to avoid the obvious errors in your current usage.
“Granted, this is indeed circular reasoning, but so is the notion of rejecting God because of his description in a book that you give no authority to in the first place.”
Notice how you employ a strawman tactic here to try to pretend that you have defeated the argument given. No where have I taken the position you attribute to me, of course, but still you pretend that I have because you believe that this alternative position will be easier to attack. Here again even a very basic understanding of reason would prevent such blatant errors and intellectual dishonesty.
As long as you attack arguments other than the ones offered, the actual arguments remain standing completely untouched. So far that is wholly the case here. So back up, READ and try to undestand the arguments actually given, and go from there. Remembering all the while that logical fallacies in your responses do not offer any support to your position nor criticism of reality.
I can’t help but feel that this debate is more about you not wanting to believe in God than anything else. If you truly feel that I am not using proper “reason” and that I am simply rambling on, then I sincerely doubt that you would be firing back such lengthy responses. You have a very condescending tone in all of your posts to not just me, but everyone on this site. I have seen you “defeat” the ideas of others here simply by saying, “I am right, you are wrong” in the most intellectual and drawn out ways you can; Even when without merit. Shockingly, it works very well for you.
Who cares? Isn’t the point of debate to learn from ourselves and others? What is the fun in any of this if we are here to prove ourselves right, and others wrong? I presented some very good ideas in my posts worth conversing about that were lost to your “god does not and cannot exist” rampage. Why is it so important to you that God does not exist? It is very possible that there is a “god” that isn’t perfect, but just strong enough to make your life (and after life) heaven or hell. So why are you so against any notion of a “god”?
It seems to me that there is no point in debating with someone who has only one accepted outcome. I believe in God, but I feel no need to defend Him. I do enjoy pondering about Him; even to the extent that He may not exist at all. Though, if I were here to convince others that God was real and would accept no alternative, what would that do for me? If you are right and there is no God then soon we will all go back to not existing. In that case, there really is no need to be “right” since its hard to hear your “kudos” while busily not existing.
Joshua,
That you turn to ad hominem attacks and blatantly dishonest claims should be a huge red flag to you as to the strength of the arguments you present.
Debate is a sport, in which you club one over the head using virtually every dirty trick out there, much like the attempt at emotional blackmail and shaming you are trying to use here. For this reason I have no interest in debate or in such game playing.
I prefer honest intellectual discussion. One crucial difference between what you are doing and describing and honest intellectual discussion is that the latter is a joint effort in which all parties agree that the starting point, the common ground, is that of reason and evidence. This means that you do not employ personal attacks (ad hominem), nor blatantly false and insulting claims, nor deny reason itself (for instance by claiming that your belief supercedes reality and reason). In honest intellectual discussion the objective is true conclusions, and this is reached through honest participation, sincere critical thought, and of course adherence to the basics such as reason and evidence, but also civility and honesty.
If you adopt this set of behaviors, as opposed to those you choose to employ particularly in this latest post, you will find that the personality issues which you are mistakenly attributing to me, simply disappear. The who no longer matters, only the what. No more do you have any basis from which to feel that this is about who is right, rather than what is right. Where you take offense at reality and reason, and direct your hatred towards me for having the gall to offer sound arguments and refutations, you could find instead that you could step up and discover some new fact, some new tidbit of knowledge, and with any luck others such as myself might also be so lucky. But when you choose to close your mind, to put yourself above all others, above reality and reason, and at the same time sink to personal attacks, false assumptions and retreats into pure emoting, you deny not only yourself those wonderful opportunities, but deny any insight you might have to others as well.
You put it well when you say “It seems to me that there is no point in debating with someone who has only one accepted outcome.” The difference here is clear however. My “one accepted outcome” is understanding, truth, knowledge, wisdom. Yours is