Why do so many people believe in a God?

antiskeptic · 15-07-2014 10:20pm

pqdvdplayer wrote: »

To think about why a person would believe in a god just confounds me. Everything about life, everything we know so far about existence, tells me ..

Precisely. Tells you. According to your worldview, according to the way you assess the puzzle, according to those arguments and influences you find persuasive, according to the model of God you labour under whose characteristics doubtlessly places an obstacle in your path.

Not everyone is you though. And those who aren't you, perhaps only some of those who aren't you, could very well be onto something you're missing out on.

Dades · 15-07-2014 10:32pm

Rezident wrote: »

This is a good question, I honestly cannot see how billions of people with the amazing brains that we have would believe in a non-existant, invisible deity. The 'comfort' argument sounds a bit weak unless there is something inside us that knows more than we consciously do i.e. that there is more to life than this, then the comfort argument would make sense.

That might hold water if those billions of people didn't all believe in 1000s of different gods. In fact all that's telling us is that people want to believe in something and it doesn't really matter whether it's true or not.

People can ignore all sorts of logic if it helps them hold onto a cherished belief.

Cabaal · 16-07-2014 8:31am

Dades wrote: »

If God can make all the nice beaches and mountains... why are millions of children starving or working down gold mines 12 hours a day or working as sex slaves?

God works in mysterious ways.....

Vivisectus · 16-07-2014 8:51am

Tomblyboo wrote: »

Well Richard Dawkins sure didn't make them

Let me see if I get this straight: you refer to the sheer wonder and awesomeness of the observable universe, it's marvelous intricacy and complexity, boggling at how all those hard-headed atheists can be immune to the pure marvel of it, how they see all that without being transported by the sheer magic of it all.

But then you immediately resort to "So a magical sky-creature must have done it all by magic"

In stead of seeing all that wonderful nature that you mentioned with all it's complex networks of inter-dependencies at all different levels from the global to the microscopical, your impulse is to immediately attribute it all to some creator-god, and leave it at that.

To me, that takes all the wonder right out of it. It is an anti-answer, a thought-stopper. It takes good old-fashioned ignorance and apathy and celebrates these as virtues.

Does it not strike you as rather lame? As a cop-out? As an excuse to not have to think too hard?

Vivisectus · 16-07-2014 8:57am

I think the ordered reality of the universe leans more towards a belief in design than chance.

This always reminds me of the kind of thinking that states that the fact that we have ten fingers is proof of an underlying order in the universe, because ordering numbers into tens works so amazingly well.

Czarcasm · 16-07-2014 9:43am

Vivisectus wrote: »

This always reminds me of the kind of thinking that states that the fact that we have ten fingers is proof of an underlying order in the universe, because ordering numbers into tens works so amazingly well.

It works so well, that even you think you have ten fingers!

Polydactyly

Eight fingers, and two opposable thumbs.

I know it sounds pedantic, but the humble opposable thumb is an often overlooked key defining trait in human evolution. If you're going to demonstrate evolution versus intelligent design (very much a Creationist "someone else designs these things" philosophy), it's important that you're not lending credence to the argument against it in the Creationist thinkers mind.

One of the simplest thought experiments you can put forward in a Creationist mind is -

If nature is a demonstration of intelligent design, how come nature is still a continuous work in progress 6,000 years later?

One would imagine an intelligent being capable of creation would be able to get it perfect the first time and leave it at that, or is nature constantly changing, God's way of continuously improving on that design? Because then that would mean that God Himself is an imperfect being seeing as he couldn't get it right the first time!

I've never yet met a Creationist to ask them to explain the circular logic, but I imagine the encounter would be something like Kirk's exchange with Nomad:

Nomad: You are the Kirk, the creator. You programmed my function.

Dr. McCoy: Well, I'm not the Kirk. Tell me what your function is.

Nomad: This is one of your units, creator?

Capt. Kirk: Yes, he is.

Nomad: It functions irrationally.

Capt. Kirk: Sometimes.

I couldn't find it on YouTube, but it's one of the more memorable episodes.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-07-2014 9:48am

Tomblyboo wrote: »

The people I don't understand are atheists.

Whats not to understand. Here I will give you a quick run down:

1) Read a claim X.
2) Check if there is anything at all supporting the claim X.
3) If not then reject the claim X and do not believe it.

Simples.

Tomblyboo wrote: »

'Who couldn't believe there's a God? Is all this a mistake?' It just blows me away.

"Mistake" is likely a poor choice of words. It implies some act of judgement or intention when we have no reason to attribute any such thing to the context.

Atheists are no less inclined to be over-awed by the beauty they find in the world around them. We just see no reason to make the leap from those emotions to thinking the only explanation for them is some kind of deity.

But the thread is not about whether there is a god or not... but about why people think there is one. And you make a good example of yourself. Some people are simply so emotionally moved by their subjective response to the world around them that they simply can not accept the idea there is no purpose and design and intention behind it all.

Dades · 16-07-2014 9:59am

Vivisectus wrote: »

I think the ordered reality of the universe leans more towards a belief in design than chance.

This always reminds me of the kind of thinking that states that the fact that we have ten fingers is proof of an underlying order in the universe, because ordering numbers into tens works so amazingly well.

I have no problem with the notion that something might have designed the universe, only when people make the spectacular leap from "the universe seems designed" to "therefore it was my bearded man-like God who demands to be worshiped and watches to make sure we're not touching ourselves under the covers."

The "intelligent design" community have a lot to answer for.

Vivisectus · 16-07-2014 10:24am

Czarcasm wrote:

wrote: »

It works so well, that even you think you have ten fingers!

Polydactyly

Eight fingers, and two opposable thumbs.

Fine then, digits! :P

Azwaldo55 · 16-07-2014 1:48pm

Fear of death and for the fate of their children and future generations, the desire for immortality, the desire for injustices that cannot be made right to be made right in the next life, a desire to appease natural forces and the hunger for an unseen big Daddy in the sky to watch their back.

It is too much for most people to face that Planet Earth is just one more speck in a bottomless ocean of space, that the span of human lives might as well be that of grass before the immensity of time, that all human suffering, fears, loves, hates and desires count as nothing since we are lumps of clay given the breath of life for only a blink of the universe's eye.

We want to feel important, we want to believe that the sun and the moon and the stars were set in the sky just for us. We want to believe that God shines on us, our family, our community, our nation, our species and our planet because we want to believe we were chosen.

The truth is nothing notices we exist and if we ceased to exist nobody would notice. Life makes no sense.

Jim Rockford · 16-07-2014 2:13pm

Dades wrote: »

That might hold water if those billions of people didn't all believe in 1000s of different gods. In fact all that's telling us is that people want to believe in something and it doesn't really matter whether it's true or not.

People can ignore all sorts of logic if it helps them hold onto a cherished belief.

Or logically it could be one god with different incorrect versions, or no god at all. 80% of theists believe in one of three versions, not 1000's. The real logic is realising no one really knows, and working out how to come to terms with the fact that other people can have different opinions to your own.

Czarcasm · 16-07-2014 2:15pm

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Fear...

We want to feel important...

The truth is nothing notices we exist and if we ceased to exist nobody would notice. Life makes no sense.

An awful lot of projection and waffle in your post there Az, which you can only say is true from your perspective, no different than billions of other people who inhabit this planet who are surrounded by people who are aware of their existence, and if they ceased to exist, the people that surround them would of course notice.

Life makes sense for most people, otherwise humanity would never have evolved to the point we are at now, and continue to evolve, because contrary your assertions, people are not only self-aware, but they can't help but be aware of other people, and graduate towards those people with whom they share a common interest.

If anything holds an individual back, it is their lack of understanding of how co-operation and communities work together to achieve a common goal.

Azwaldo55 · 16-07-2014 2:25pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

An awful lot of projection and waffle in your post there Az, which you can only say is true from your perspective, no different than billions of other people who inhabit this planet who are surrounded by people who are aware of their existence, and if they ceased to exist, the people that surround them would of course notice.

In centuries to come you and everyone you know and love will be dust or heaps of bones. Your headstone worn down by rain and wind will long since have fallen over and broken into pieces and been swallowed by weeds. Nobody will know or care that you even existed. In time this planet will be swallowed when the sun swells up to the size of a red giant.

Life makes sense for most people, otherwise humanity would never have evolved to the point we are at now, and continue to evolve, because contrary your assertions, people are not only self-aware, but they can't help but be aware of other people, and graduate towards those people with whom they share a common interest.

But for what? To be born, to live and to die and what then? Living a happy life and loving other people and doing good is not enough for most people. We all will decline and die. All that suffering will be for nothing if we do not enjoy eternity. Which is why people become religious. Especially so as they witness friends and family die around them. The beautiful body of a young woman becomes the withered wrinkly shrunken bent figure of an old hag. Strength gives way to feebleness. Laughter and singing die and go silent.

If anything holds an individual back, it is their lack of understanding of how co-operation and communities work together to achieve a common goal.

Look around you and you will see the ruins of societies that passed away. Nothing but moss covered stones and humps in the ground and the odd skeleton or axe head tell us that they even existed. The fact so many lived and died before us is a matter of extreme indifference to most people.
It is only when we face the horror of the oblivion of death that people turn to faith. Nobody despite what people say nobody has a lovely death.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-07-2014 2:33pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

if they ceased to exist, the people that surround them would of course notice.

I think you and I may be reading his post differently. Or at least reading the meaning of "we" in his post differently. How you are reading it does indeed render the post "waffle".... rather than just mundane.

When he said "IF we cease to exist" I do not think he meant us as individuals.... because as you point out clearly those around us would notice. My partner and daughter would certainly be wondering where I am.

I read the poster as meaning if we... our species in its entirety.... ceased to exist then there is no one there to notice (that is to say no god). There simply would be no one left to do the noticing.

A lot of people do derive value in their life and actions from others. How others view us, respond to us, laud praise on us for our achievements or cajole us for our failures. For many their self worth is mediated upon the worth they have to others.

And if some people derive value in this way... from the observations of others and their awareness of us.... it is indeed a small step to wishing this for our species as a whole. And this is a mentality I experience in theists often..... what value is human life if there is not some great observer out there to whom it all somehow _matters_.

Essentially the poster is just getting at the theme of the ultimate futility and meaningless of human existence that exists when we do not invoke a divine creator to infuse it with one.

smacl · 16-07-2014 2:34pm

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

We want to feel important, we want to believe that the sun and the moon and the stars were set in the sky just for us. We want to believe that God shines on us, our family, our community, our nation, our species and our planet because we want to believe we were chosen.

Perhaps people believe in God because doing so supports just this kind of Mittyesque self delusion, where God is always on their side, understanding their hardships and why they're right and everyone else is wrong.

The truth is nothing notices we exist and if we ceased to exist nobody would notice. Life makes no sense.

Why do you feel you have to be noticed for life to make sense? I ask because I suspect that using a belief in God as a long term psychological crutch essentially engenders insecurity as the belief gets eroded. I'm not convinced this insecurity would exist in the first place where religion is not introduced at an early age.

bnt · 16-07-2014 2:38pm

Have a look at this piece by Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon strip. (Which doesn't make him an expert on anything, as he happily says all the time.) He uses a metaphor of religion as a "user interface to reality", a friendly overlay to help us make sense of a complex and uncaring universe. Which would be fine if it got the desired results, but ... ISDN*

* It Still Does Nothing. Scott used to support Pacific Bell's ISDN (digital phone line) services before he made it big as a cartoonist.

Azwaldo55 · 16-07-2014 2:52pm

smacl wrote: »

Perhaps people believe in God because doing so supports just this kind of Mittyesque self delusion, where God is always on their side, understanding their hardships and why they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Why do you feel you have to be noticed for life to make sense? I ask because I suspect that using a belief in God as a long term psychological crutch essentially engenders insecurity as the belief gets eroded. I'm not convinced this insecurity would exist in the first place where religion is not introduced at an early age.

Humans want to be loved, they want to be recognized and remembered and they don't want their bones scattered.

Why does this classic scene from Jaws engender so much horror terror and fear? Because thousands of men aboard the Indianapolis died agonizing lonely deaths in the Pacific Ocean. 70 years on most people don't know or care.

The idea that a living breathing human being with what many people believe has a soul is lost at sea or consumed by a creature and they have no grave and nobody to mourn for them is too much.

This is why people pray.

I read about a WW2 pilot who saw a neighboring bomber's belly doors open and spill its bombs accidentally right on top of a plane directly below and both planes vanished in a giant explosion. Nothing was left of twenty men. Gone. Blown to smithereens. After seeing that he stopped being a carefree kid who want to dance with girls and drink and screw around. He became religious and thanked God that he could bounce his grandchildren on his knees thirty and forty years later.

Czarcasm · 16-07-2014 2:53pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think you and I may be reading his post differently. Or at least reading the meaning of "we" in his post differently. How you are reading it does indeed render the post "waffle".... rather than just mundane.

...

Essentially the poster is just getting at the theme of the ultimate futility and meaningless of human existence that exists when we do not invoke a divine creator to infuse it with one.

Spot on assessment nozz, that's exactly the way it came across to me - as a meaningless monologue, oft rattled off by teenagers who are trying to sound intellectual or interesting amongst their peers.

I mean practically word for word!

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-07-2014 2:56pm

bnt wrote: »

Have a look at this piece by Scott Adams

Or "Captain Sock Puppet" as he is known to many.

smacl · 16-07-2014 3:07pm

Jim Rockford wrote: »

Or logically it could be one god with different incorrect versions, or no god at all. 80% of theists believe in one of three versions, not 1000's

Really? Which three are we talking about, because the last Pew research poll of 2010 would suggest not. You certainly can't lump Hinduism in with Christianity and Islam in terms of worshipping a different version the same deity.

The real logic is realising no one really knows, and working out how to come to terms with the fact that other people can have different opinions to your own.

I would suggest that the real logic is realising that any societies adherence to religious belief is very dynamic with Christianity currently in rapid decline in Europe. To my mind, traditional religious belief in Western society has more to do with tradition than belief, where the belief part is a residual artefact from a more primitive past.

smacl · 16-07-2014 3:19pm

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The idea that a living breathing human being with what many people believe has a soul is lost at sea or consumed by a creature and they have no grave and nobody to mourn for them is too much.

This is why people pray.

I read about a WW2 pilot who saw a neighboring bomber's belly doors open and spill its bombs accidentally right on top of a plane directly below and both planes vanished in a giant explosion. Nothing was left of twenty men. Gone. Blown to smithereens. After seeing that he stopped being a carefree kid who want to dance with girls and drink and screw around. He became religious and thanked God that he could bounce his grandchildren on his knees thirty and forty years later.

Really all that this says to me is that when called upon to deal with the grittier and more unpleasant aspects of reality, religious people duck out and turn to a preferred fantasy instead. I'm baffled as to why someone who witnessed massive and tragic loss of life on the battlefield would be moved to start worshipping the supposedly omnipotent deity that caused said destruction. The converse would seem more logical.

Azwaldo55 · 16-07-2014 3:27pm

smacl wrote: »

Really all that this says to me is that when called upon to deal with the grittier and more unpleasant aspects of reality, religious people duck out and turn to a preferred fantasy instead. I'm baffled as to why someone who witnessed massive and tragic loss of life on the battlefield would be moved to start worshipping the supposedly omnipotent deity that caused said destruction. The converse would seem more logical.

Yet this is precisely what people do when they are in such situations. There is film called Unbroken coming out soon about Louis Zamperini, an Olympiad who excelled at track and field and then became a bomber crewman during WW2. His plane was shot down and he survived for weeks in a life raft only to be captured by the Japs who treated him brutally in captivity. He survived this hell on earth and later became a born again Christian. Zmperini died only a few days ago at the age of 97.

I cannot imagine the horrors that poor man went through the hellish nightmares he must have experienced for the remainder of his life.

His faith helped him to forgive and when he met his Japanese captors, men who treated him with merciless cruelty, years later he embraced them and told them he loved them to their astonishment.

I am not religious but it is no mystery why Zamperini became religious. He would have gone insane otherwise.

Vivisectus · 16-07-2014 3:38pm

smacl wrote:

I'm not convinced this insecurity would exist in the first place where religion is not introduced at an early age.

Funny anecdote/rambling observations on this subject: my youngest is being brought up without religion, in a vague and agnostic sort of way: we explain religious concepts when they come up, but we make it very clear that religion is something that everyone has to make their own mind up about. We do not push our own opinions on her with any emphasis, and I always point out that while I have come to some conclusions based on what I have seen so far, it is up to her to make up her own mind about it.

It is funny how few of the religious concepts seem to actually matter to her. They just do not seem to really touch on her life or the questions she has. She has no real issue with mortality. The budgie, our dog, and Grandpa are now part of the plants and the trees in the cemetery, and that is good enough for her. Loss is sad, but there is not a lot of dread of non-existence that I can detect.

Dinosaurs, now THAT she has questions about. And how plants grow. And how to handle having accidentally wronged someone in a way that is fair to all parties.

She is the most deeply moral person that I know, and she is extremely imaginative, perceptive and one of the brightest kids I have seen so far. But she does not seem to have any religious impulse that I can detect.

That said, she DOES half-believe in fairies and gnomes, because she likes to. That seems to be reason enough for her, and I see no reason to interfere with that.

Azwaldo55 · 16-07-2014 3:46pm

Vivisectus wrote: »

Funny anecdote/rambling observations on this subject: my youngest is being brought up without religion, in a vague and agnostic sort of way: we explain religious concepts when they come up, but we make it very clear that religion is something that everyone has to make their own mind up about. We do not push our own opinions on her with any emphasis, and I always point out that while I have come to some conclusions based on what I have seen so far, it is up to her to make up her own mind about it.

It is funny how few of the religious concepts seem to actually matter to her. They just do not seem to really touch on her life or the questions she has. She has no real issue with mortality. The budgie, our dog, and Grandpa are now part of the plants and the trees in the cemetery, and that is good enough for her. Loss is sad, but there is not a lot of dread of non-existence that I can detect.

Dinosaurs, now THAT she has questions about. And how plants grow. And how to handle having accidentally wronged someone in a way that is fair to all parties.

She is the most deeply moral person that I know, and she is extremely imaginative, perceptive and one of the brightest kids I have seen so far. But she does not seem to have any religious impulse that I can detect.

That said, she DOES half-believe in fairies and gnomes, because she likes to. That seems to be reason enough for her, and I see no reason to interfere with that.

Major Randolph Churchill (1911-68), of Eton College and Christ Church, Oxford (failed BA), on first reading the Holy Bible, having been persuaded to do so by the writer Evelyn Waugh, incredulously said, "Isn't God a sh*t?"

smacl · 16-07-2014 4:14pm

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I am not religious but it is no mystery why Zamperini became religious. He would have gone insane otherwise.

Could be argued that becoming religious when struggling with extreme hardship corresponds to going slightly insane. I think Hollywood also realises that good ol' fashioned God fearing heroes sell more seats in than their godless counterparts, and find that much mainstream American media has a very similar bias.

Azwaldo55 · 16-07-2014 4:37pm

smacl wrote: »

Could be argued that becoming religious when struggling with extreme hardship corresponds to going slightly insane. I think Hollywood also realises that good ol' fashioned God fearing heroes sell more seats in than their godless counterparts, and find that much mainstream American media has a very similar bias.

I would agree.
Ira Hayes was one of the men who planted the Stars and Stripes on Iwo Jima and he died from alcoholism and despair.

smacl · 16-07-2014 5:00pm

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

I would agree.
Ira Hayes was one of the men who planted the Stars and Stripes on Iwo Jima and he died from alcoholism and despair.

Again, this very much relates with an inability to deal with reality, whether past or present. I'm not sure that either Jesus or Jack Daniels is much of a solution for what we'd now consider post traumatic stress. I reckon John Prine hit the nail on the head with this one.

Dades · 16-07-2014 6:00pm

bnt wrote: »

Have a look at this piece by Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon strip. (Which doesn't make him an expert on anything, as he happily says all the time.) He uses a metaphor of religion as a "user interface to reality", a friendly overlay to help us make sense of a complex and uncaring universe. Which would be fine if it got the desired results, but ... ISDN*

That's a really interesting concept.

Unfortunately he stops short of mentioning where people are trying to forcefully install their OS on other people's hardware. That's the main reason why Linux users might be speaking out against Windows Vista users.

equivariant · 16-07-2014 9:41pm

Tomblyboo wrote: »

I'm a Christian now. The things that drove me crazy growing up was how everyone works at fault-finding with different religions. The people I don't understand are atheists. I go surfing and snow boarding and I'm always around nature. I look at everything and think, 'Who couldn't believe there's a God? Is all this a mistake?' It just blows me away.

We've had the ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument and now ... the argument from snowboarding. Still I suppose its about as convincing as those others

recedite · 17-07-2014 12:17am

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

In centuries to come you and everyone you know and love will be dust or heaps of bones.

We'll all probably have descendants or some kind of relatives still living.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

But for what? To be born, to live and to die and what then? Living a happy life and loving other people and doing good is not enough for most people.

That's because they have been lied to. And in the back of their mind there is always a slight suspicion that heaven is just a con.
If you think you have won a voucher for a free 3 course meal, and someone else tells you the restaurant will only give you a 2 course meal, you won't be happy. If you knew it was a 2 course all along, you will be quite happy with that.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

We all will decline and die. All that suffering will be for nothing if we do not enjoy eternity. Which is why people become religious.

You don't get rewarded for suffering. You get rewarded for achieving. If a fish flips out of the water, and slowly bakes to death on the hot concrete, it does not go to fishy heaven just because it has done something stupid.

So just try to enjoy yourself a bit more. Take positive steps

Vivisectus · 17-07-2014 8:58am

Living a happy life and loving other people and doing good is not enough for most people.

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

Akrasia · 17-07-2014 10:15am

pqdvdplayer wrote: »

For a moment, I don't want to argue over whether or not a god exists--I want to know why so many people believe that one does. I usually receive generalized answers to this--"it comforts people," or "they were indoctrinated into the belief," and such related answers.

It doesn't baffle me so much that people believe that a god exists, but rather that a lot of people believe that a god exists. I could understand it if a portion of the population were theists, but I'm surprised the theist/atheist makeup of the population isn't at least around equal parts. Instead, the majority still believes in the existence of a god.

To think about why a person would believe in a god just confounds me. Everything about life, everything we know so far about existence, tells me that one most likely does not exist. Even with a fair analysis of the arguments for and against the existence of a god, the arguments against one existing are clearly superior. I'm not belittling the person who believes in a god, I am simply expressing my inability to understand why they believe it.

It is true that belief in a god and religion provides comfort to those people...but surely the understand that, just because you believe something to be true and it gives you comfort, does not actually mean that it IS true? I mean, if people at least considered this possibility, then they would move on to examine the legitimacy of their beliefs. And thus, I would expect more and more theists to lose their beliefs, but instead they maintain them.

Here's my working definition of faith

Faith is a combination of hope and trust. People who have reasonable faith first have trust, then back this up with hope. People with unreasonable faith first have hope, and follow this up with trust.

Most People who have reigious faith first hope that god exists, and then trust the authorities who tell them that god is real. Hope is a powerful emotion that people can cling to even when the odds are very much against their belief being true. (I say 'Most people' because there are also people who belief in God out of fearn rather than hope, but there are still elements of hope and trust, eg, I hope that by praying towards mecca 5 times a day I will do enough to get on god's good side and I trust that the Mullahs know what they're talking about more than those infidell christians)

If a christian asks me 'do you have faith in your wife' I hate using the word 'faith' because it's a loaded word, but if pressed, I say yes. I trust my wife and I hope that my trust is well founded, and I hope that my wife has similar faith in me.' I trust my wife because I have strong reasons to trust her, and I hope the trust is justified because I can never know for certain but the risk is worth taking because of the hope our relationship brings.

If my wife had a history of cheating on me or behaviour that demonstrates that she no longer loves me, the I am nowhere near as justified in having faith in her because I have no grounds for trust, and hope is all there is left.

There's no point in debating anyone about their private hopes for what is real or otherwise. We should focus on the trust. Why do people of faith trust the people and the holy books that they do? The answer is always ultimately 'because I hope they are telling the truth'

Someone might have faith in god. They hope that god is real, and this allows them to trust that the bible is true

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-07-2014 10:59am

I think my working definition of "faith" has always been "The willingness to assume your premise true as part of the methodology of proving your premise true".

It is a definition that certainly fits most of the theists I have had discourse with, if not all, and other woo and nonsense groups like the 23ists depicted in a Jim Carey film which, sadly, actually seem to exist in reality.

Vivisectus · 17-07-2014 11:09am

? What is a 23ist?

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-07-2014 11:22am

Vivisectus wrote: »

? What is a 23ist?

There is some group of people who seem to think that everything and anything, all events and life and so forth, is somehow connected to the number 23. It is called "The 23 enigma".

There was a Jim Carey movie about it and William Burroughs was said to be a believer.

The thing is it works. As I said above, if "faith" is the willingness to assume your conclusion as part of proving your conclusion, you will find 23ism works. You will see 23 every where or, like Carey in the film, find some multiple of it, or of 32 which is just 23 backwards, or numbers where the digits add up to 23 like for example 9563.

If you WANT to find 23 you will find it. So 23ism is true.

Thing is, of course, it works for every number especially prime numbers and you could just as easily validate 17ism if you assume the conclusion before you evidence it.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

I see faith in god as being similar. The bible for example admonishes us to "Sekk and you shall find" and this is exactly what I am saying. If you assume there is a god and then go looking for evidence and substantiation that fits that assumption..... you will find it.

My favorite example of this is when theists tell me "Look in the mirror and THERE is the evidence for god". A statement which makes perfect sense if you first assume the conclusion. They say it in all seriousness not realizing this fallacy in what they say.

smacl · 17-07-2014 11:23am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think my working definition of "faith" has always been "The willingness to assume your premise true as part of the methodology of proving your premise true".

This rather misses the fact that faith can often be well founded. For example, as I go hurtling down a hill on my bicycle, I have faith that correct application of my brakes at the appropriate moment will prevent by untimely demise. It has worked before, I service my bike meticulously, I have faith it will work again.

Akrasia's trust and hope seems to fit better here. Unsubstantiated religious faith seems more like hope and unfounded trust.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-07-2014 11:28am

I do not see that as "faith" per se smacl. As you say trust and hope are probably better words. I do not see it as faith, trust or hope at all really. I see it as a probability judgement based on a very real data set (past experience and the operation of the same piece of equipment on the bikes of others, and my knowledge of the mechanics of how breaks work all come together to form a data set).

So this is the exact opposite of faith for me. Its a judgement based on a very real data set without any fallacious assumptions, such as assuming your conclusion as part of the process of evidencing your conclusion.

After all we would not call science a faith either and yet at the end of the day all science is is reaching conclusions based on the totality of the current data set available to us, without assuming data we do not have, or ignoring data we do.

So your trust in your brakes is a scientific position for me, not a faith based on.

smacl · 17-07-2014 11:38am

Faith has more than one meaning. Outside of religion, it means to have belief, confidence and trust in a person place or thing. Sometimes it is based around hard supporting information, other times it may be based around a value judgement, other times still it can be a leap into the unknown. These days, I try to avoid the latter more often than when I was younger.

traprunner · 17-07-2014 11:43am

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-07-2014 11:47am

smacl wrote: »

Faith has more than one meaning.

So do most words. Ngarric has made a career on this forum for example over obfuscating discourse by merely equivocating over the meaning of terms while simply saying nothing at all of any substance.

smacl wrote: »

Outside of religion

Perhaps. But in defining terms context is everything :P and last time I checked we were having a religion conversation, in a thread about religion, in a forum about religion.

If you switch or remove the context, then I can do nothing but concede the point, while wondering at its relevance

smacl · 17-07-2014 12:09pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Perhaps. But in defining terms context is everything :P and last time I checked we were having a religion conversation, in a thread about religion, in a forum about religion.

Part of the context in this occasion was akrasia having faith in his wife. Now while akrasia may well consider her to be a Goddess in other contexts, I rather doubt that was the point he was making in his previous post, which makes the non-religious use of the word faith fair game.

I would suggest that your attempt to limit the use of the word faith on this occasion is in itself a form of obfuscation.

Re: Ngarric, you guys should really get a room

Akrasia · 17-07-2014 12:19pm

It's funny. When someone uses the word 'trust' 99% of the time people agree on the meaning of that word. Faith is almost the same thing as trust, but opinions differ wildly on what it means.

I think us atheists are partially to blame for this when we often define 'Faith' as 'belief in spite of the evidence'. and the we say things like 'I don't have faith, I just accept the evidence'.

While this may often be an accurate description of what having faith looks like, it is not an accurate description of the thought process of the person who holds the Faith position.

Lets give an example of George Hook, he was debating with Michal Nugent and that guy from Trinity who wrote that article in the Irish times. He has said many many times that he believes in god for two reasons. 1. He can not understand how the universe could have come into existance without a god
2. He hopes that when he dies he will go to heaven and ditto for his loved ones.

No matter how many scientists explain to him how the universe can arise without the need for God, he has an alternative explanation which is not in conflict with his Hope of an afterlife.

He trusts in religion because of his hope. If he was brought up to believe in a religion where every single person goes to hell when they die, then George would be an atheist because he would hope that there is no god and he would trust the scientists who give him a reason to continue to hope this.

Hope routinely triumphs over reason.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-07-2014 12:25pm

smacl wrote: »

would suggest that your attempt to limit the use of the word faith on this occasion is in itself a form of obfuscation.

Yeah because defining a religious word by its religious definition in a religion context is obfuscation. For sure. Did you take an over injection of comedy juice today?

Those injecting the non-contextual versions of it are the ones going off topic. Excuse me for staying ON topic, but I intend to do so on any thread I post on.

Akrasia wrote: »

I think us atheists are partially to blame for this when we often define 'Faith' as 'belief in spite of the evidence'. and the we say things like 'I don't have faith, I just accept the evidence'.

While this may often be an accurate description of what having faith looks like, it is not an accurate description of the thought process of the person who holds the Faith position.

Agreed. That is why I defined faith as "The willingness to assume your conclusion as part of the process of proving your conclusion". Because as you suggest.... these faith heads do think they have evidence and have been considering the evidence.

So when atheists come along and tell them they have belief with no evidence, this instantly destroys discourse because the theist simply known this to be untrue.

The fact is theists have LOADS of evidence. Evidence abounds for them. The issue is that this evidence is flawed by the fallacious methodology of confirmation bias. The evidence only proves the conclusion IF you assume the conclusion is true.

Which essentially means they have no evidence and have belief without evidence..... but that is not the reality THEY think they occupy..... so spelling it out to them in THOSE terms is not going to achieve anything alas.

smacl · 17-07-2014 12:54pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Excuse me for staying ON topic, but I intend to do so on any thread I post on.

Ngarric has made a career on this forum for example over obfuscating discourse by merely equivocating over the meaning of terms while simply saying nothing at all of any substance.

And here was me thinking your main reason for visiting this thread was to blow a kiss to an old friend. Mea Culpa

Pass me my needle Doc, looks like I'm due another injection.

Akrasia · 17-07-2014 1:25pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Those injecting the non-contextual versions of it are the ones going off topic. Excuse me for staying ON topic, but I intend to do so on any thread I post on.

It was more of an attempt to decontextualize the term rather than introduce a non contextual version.

My 'faith in my wife, SMACL's 'faith' in his Brakes, our collective 'faith' in the scientific method and religious faith can all be included in the 'hope + trust' definition without doing any injustice to any of them

I trust my wife and hope my trust is justified = I have faith in my wife

SMACL trusts his bicycle maintance and hopes that someone didn't tamper with them = 'Faith' in his brakes

We collectively 'trust' the scientific method and 'hope' that individual scientists and collective bodies of scientists are honest and dilligent in their methods and approach = 'Faith' in science (note, this is in general terms, and one would need to be mad to have excessive trust in 'science' in all circumstances)

Religious people's hope that their beliefs about God are true, and then their trust in evidence that allows them to believe in God = religious faith

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-07-2014 3:23pm

smacl wrote: »

And here was me thinking your main reason for visiting this thread was to blow a kiss to an old friend.

Because of one throw away sentence out of the many many I have written on this thread.... you mistook my entire motivation for posting on the thread? You are.... easily distracted I guess

Akrasia wrote: »

It was more of an attempt to decontextualize the term rather than introduce a non contextual version.

And as I said I merely wonder at the utility of that. It is hard enough to pin doen the meaning of some of these words and phrases even WITHIN the context.... that is how slippery some of them are. Even the word "god" seems to have as many meanings as there are people subscribing to the concept sometimes.

So further obfuscation of it all by introducing extra-contextual definitions too is not something I predict will end at all well. Then again what threads here do?

Akrasia wrote: »

My 'faith in my wife, SMACL's 'faith' in his Brakes, our collective 'faith' in the scientific method and religious faith can all be included in the 'hope + trust' definition without doing any injustice to any of them

As I said though I just do not feel "faith" sits right in those areas, where other words like "trust" and "choice" and more make more sense and seem to apply more correctly.

In fact we can even call our faith in our wives, or trust, or whatever.... a judgement call based on the data set too really. It is not like we are blindly putting faith and trust in them. Rather our judgement call on this is updated iteratively over time and validated. I would have some sympathy for someone who had to put "faith" in this when there are many who get little looks, actions, commitments, gestures, words, overtures and much more that each day mean we do not have to put "faith" in any of this, but simply judge the data set available to us to make a valid conclusion.... just like with the brakes on your bike.

Sometimes the blind faith, trust and love we so cherish is not actually as blind as we think it to be but is more informed by an evaluation of the available data set than we might think.

Contrast this, as I did which was my point, to the "faith" in the existence of a god. This is not based on a data set per se. Rather it is based on the fallacious move of assuming the conclusion correct as part of the process of evidencing the conclusion. And it is that distinction I draw my personal definition of "faith" on..... and if you go back and read it..... it was only my PERSONAL one I was offering here. Not some diatribe on what the real definition is or should be.

Those kinds of "faith" are massively different to me. This religious kind of "faith" is simply not comparable to my mind with any of the other types your post described.

Brian Shanahan · 17-07-2014 3:40pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Hope routinely triumphs over reason.

As evidenced by the many people who believe the Lady Hope "I reconverted Darwin on his deathbed, and he denounced the religion of evilution" story, despite it having been proven to be a pack of lies for a long time (the lady had a habit of saying she converted many people she never met to her brand of christianity).

PopePalpatine · 17-07-2014 8:09pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is some group of people who seem to think that everything and anything, all events and life and so forth, is somehow connected to the number 23. It is called "The 23 enigma".

There was a Jim Carey movie about it and William Burroughs was said to be a believer.

The thing is it works. As I said above, if "faith" is the willingness to assume your conclusion as part of proving your conclusion, you will find 23ism works. You will see 23 every where or, like Carey in the film, find some multiple of it, or of 32 which is just 23 backwards, or numbers where the digits add up to 23 like for example 9563.

If you WANT to find 23 you will find it. So 23ism is true.

I guess they'd avoid Nissans then, as 23 is "ni-san" in Japanese.

smacl · 18-07-2014 8:32am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Those kinds of "faith" are massively different to me. This religious kind of "faith" is simply not comparable to my mind with any of the other types your post described.

To my mind religious faith is simply a form of blind faith, i.e. faith that is not evidence based, but is no different from other kinds of faith apart from this. We also see blind faith outside of religion, where we take a risk and make a snap value judgement to take a punt on something or someone with no strong evidence to do so. Sometimes this is based on a persons real or perceived credentials, whether it be doctor, plumber, conman or priest.

Akrasia · 18-07-2014 8:52am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said though I just do not feel "faith" sits right in those areas, where other words like "trust" and "choice" and more make more sense and seem to apply more correctly.

I'd be happy enough to never use the word faith to describe anything other than religious faith, but the fact is, when religious people go on the defensive, they often try to equivocate religious faith with other situations where the term faith might apply, and rather than argue about context which never works, It's probably a better strategy to use a decontextualized definition that can be used to highlight the differences between religious faith, and other forms of trust and belief.

Why do so many people believe in a God?

Comments