A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

Like I said in a previous post; belief, faith, hope, etc. are coping mechanism's for events and circumstances for which we have no explanation. Employing "part of G-d's plan" upon the sudden death of a loved one gives consolation and comfort to those that are grief stricken. It's "truth" lies in the faith of the believer; a subjective truth.

If faith, hope, etc are only used for something which has no explanation, then can you magically turn these off when you get explanations? Do you know how many scientists "believe" in God, have "faith" in God, despite having explanations for stuff? The facts betray you. Explanations don't substitute for those things, because they're part of us despite of explanations.

If people didn't have explanations for a solar eclipse, you say they believed in God as a result. Now we have explanations for a solar eclipse, and people still believe in God.

 

[alzan]

If faith, hope, etc are only used for something which has no explanation, then can you magically turn these off when you get explanations? Do you know how many scientists "believe" in God, have "faith" in God, despite having explanations for stuff? The facts betray you. Explanations don't substitute for those things, because they're part of us despite of explanations.

If people didn't have explanations for a solar eclipse, you say they believed in God as a result. Now we have explanations for a solar eclipse, and people still believe in God.

Perhaps explanation was the wrong word. Faith, hope, etc. go beyond mere explanation. When faced with an inconsolable event, some comfort themselves with the "part of G-d's plan" meme; for them it's an explanation or reason. Explanation for theists is not a substitute but a cold fact; their belief gives them comfort. As well, "part of G-d's plan" and similar memes or phrases can comfort the young who do not understand death or other realities of life.

Primitive peoples without access to astronomical knowledge would have thought G-d did it, either because their leader(s) told them that that was the reason or through groupthink and peer pressure.

Belief in G-d or g-ds has long been part of our various cultures throughout history; even when we as society have an explanation for everything some will still choose to believe.

There's nothing magical about re-thinking a circumstance or event when a given logical and scientific explanation presents itself: I don't know about you but I'm more at ease with an eclipse being the result of one planetary body temporarily blocking the suns light than I am with some unnamed deity doing it.

Scientists are able to put aside their faith in order to do their work, if they didn't their work would fail peer review and empirical testing.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

God of the gaps combined with Cultural buttressing. Hardly something to celebrate. Ritualize the celebration lack of knowledge, and even when knowledge becomes available people hold on to the ritual as a part of their culture, and since that culture is part of their personal identities, to hold on to their own identity.

 

[jackstar7]

It's funny, if his own child died, I'm sure he wouldn't be saying "it's all part of God's plan".

Hard to predict what that kind of trauma might cause a person. Some would surely dive deeper into their faith to block out the bleak reality.

 

[Retro Rob]

Perhaps explanation was the wrong word. Faith, hope, etc. go beyond mere explanation. When faced with an inconsolable event, some comfort themselves with the "part of G-d's plan" meme; for them it's an explanation or reason. Explanation for theists is not a substitute but a cold fact; their belief gives them comfort. As well, "part of G-d's plan" and similar memes or phrases can comfort the young who do not understand death or other realities of life.

Primitive peoples without access to astronomical knowledge would have thought G-d did it, either because their leader(s) told them that that was the reason or through groupthink and peer pressure.

Belief in G-d or g-ds has long been part of our various cultures throughout history; even when we as society have an explanation for everything some will still choose to believe.

There's nothing magical about re-thinking a circumstance or event when a given logical and scientific explanation presents itself: I don't know about you but I'm more at ease with an eclipse being the result of one planetary body temporarily blocking the suns light than I am with some unnamed deity doing it.

Scientists are able to put aside their faith in order to do their work, if they didn't their work would fail peer review and empirical testing.

I don't disagree that some cultures made stuff up, but I think you're making a mistake in trying to explain away why belief in God is so common, even in an age of rapid scientific advancement. You may be overlooking the obvious.

I've heard that it was necessary when there weren't answers, now we have a lot of answers, and while religion is dying, theism is not. Young people aren't really as religious, but they believe in a higher power, or God, there's really no big difference in that, IMO.

It seems that you cant find a definite answer, and you're making stuff up...citing comfort as a reason, unexplained events, because my leaders told me so, etc, and I've shown that belief exists without a need for any of those things.

 

[lotus503]

I don't disagree that some cultures made stuff up, but I think you're making a mistake in trying to explain away why belief in God is so common, even in an age of rapid scientific advancement. You may be overlooking the obvious.

I've heard that it was necessary when there weren't answers, now we have a lot of answers, and while religion is dying, theism is not. Young people aren't really as religious, but they believe in a higher power, or God, there's really no big difference in that, IMO.

It seems that you cant find a definite answer, and you're making stuff up...citing comfort as a reason, unexplained events, because my leaders told me so, etc, and I've shown that belief exists without a need for any of those things.

I disagree with the bolded, there is a big difference in stating I believe in a higher power in response to how the natural world works and stating I think Jesus Christ is lord and savior and faith in the Dogma of organized religion.

I heard someone once state that one of the biggest cases for a god is mans natural propensity the believe in one. that we are hard wired to believe in God and that in itself is anecdotal evidence of one. I actually find that line of thought intriguing.

 

[alzan]

I don't disagree that some cultures made stuff up, but I think you're making a mistake in trying to explain away why belief in God is so common, even in an age of rapid scientific advancement. You may be overlooking the obvious.

I've heard that it was necessary when there weren't answers, now we have a lot of answers, and while religion is dying, theism is not. Young people aren't really as religious, but they believe in a higher power, or God, there's really no big difference in that, IMO.

It seems that you cant find a definite answer, and you're making stuff up...citing comfort as a reason, unexplained events, because my leaders told me so, etc, and I've shown that belief exists without a need for any of those things.

You seem to think I'm explaining belief away when I'm not.

I'm a pragmatic person; if believing in a deity, FSM, multi-colored unicorns, etc. helps you avoid or work through emotional obstacles as you weave your way down the road of life, or gives you the warm fuzzies at night, that's great. Just don't put it in governmental legislation or shove it down people's throats.

Are you denying that belief in G-d can give one comfort at times of emotional stress? Are you denying that people have and will heed a leaders words, whether that leader is malevolent or benevolent? Are you denying that people do use the catch-all "G-d did it" to explain things not fully understood?

Perhaps it is a need for belief; especially for the fear and unknown of what happens after death.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I heard someone once state that one of the biggest cases for a god is mans natural propensity the believe in one. that we are hard wired to believe in God and that in itself is anecdotal evidence of one. I actually find that line of thought intriguing.

It's not anecdotal evidence of anything. There's an unstated assumption being made, that if a god exists, it would necessarily favor our belief in it.

At which point we're left wondering why a god who wants us to believe in it would create a universe that doesn't constantly and unmistakably reinforce it's existence. If god actually wants us to believe, why is only Moses getting the burning bush treatment instead of everyone?

The lack of positive reinforcement as such a deity must be able to provide is good reason to suspect that if such an entity exists, our belief in it is not a priority.

 

[lotus503]

It's not anecdotal evidence of anything. There's an unstated assumption being made, that if a god exists, it would necessarily favor our belief in it.

At which point we're left wondering why a god who wants us to believe in it would create a universe that doesn't constantly and unmistakably reinforce it's existence. If god actually wants us to believe, why is only Moses getting the burning bush treatment instead of everyone?

The lack of positive reinforcement as such a deity must be able to provide is good reason to suspect that if such an entity exists, our belief in it is not a priority.

I think I found the part of the original context

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2009/02/born-believers/

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm a pragmatic person

Pragmatists believe in God. Are you saying the reason you don't believe because you're "pragmatic"?

helps you avoid or work through emotional obstacles as you weave your way down the road of life, or gives you the warm fuzzies at night, that's great.

What are warm fuzzies? God can help people through tough times, so what? So does crack for some.

Just don't put it in governmental legislation or shove it down people's throats.

Don't know what this has to do with belief in God. I'm a believer, and don't want it in government.

Are you denying that belief in G-d can give one comfort at times of emotional stress? Are you denying that people have and will heed a leaders words, whether that leader is malevolent or benevolent? Are you denying that people do use the catch-all "G-d did it" to explain things not fully understood?

What I'm saying that you're arbitrarily limiting belief on God to those options.

I believe in God because I see evidence of his existence through the existence of the physical world. All that emotional stuff is a well and good, but people get emotional relief by many things.

 

[alzan]

Pragmatists believe in God. Are you saying the reason you don't believe because you're "pragmatic"? I'm saying I'm pragmatic and that belief in a deity does not give me comfort, nor does it give me an acceptable answer to as yet undiscovered knowledge. If other pragmatists find comfort and acceptable answers with belief in a deity that's fine with me, whatever works for them

What are warm fuzzies? God can help people through tough times, so what? So does crack for some. Good and comforting emotional thoughts.

Don't know what this has to do with belief in God. I'm a believer, and don't want it in government. A zealous belief in G-d by a group or sub-group of a countries citizens can have disastrous effects on people who do not agree with the religious zealots. In many countries religion and politics are so entwined as to be indistinguishable.

What I'm saying that you're arbitrarily limiting belief on God to those options. No, I gave examples. You choose to see my examples as "limits".

I believe in God because I see evidence of his existence through the existence of the physical world. All that emotional stuff is a well and good, but people get emotional relief by many things.

Never said they didn't.

 

[Exophase]

Pragmatists believe in God. Are you saying the reason you don't believe because you're "pragmatic"?

I think you mean to say that there are pragmatic people who believe in God, rather than what you seem to be saying which is that believing in God is more pragmatic than not believing in God. But I'm not really sure what a pragmatist is supposed to be. If you pick any person at random I guarantee you that, given some criteria, you will find many aspects of their beliefs and lifestyle that are not as efficient as possible.

You can probably counter what alzan said (being a pragmatic person) on a similar vein, but it's pretty clear he's just saying that he doesn't find a belief in God to be practical.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

You know, from my philosophy courses way back when, I seem to remember "The obsolescence of the eternal" being one of the cornerstones of Pragmatism as it was originally put forward. That pretty much rules out god.

 

[Retro Rob]

I think I found the part of the original context

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2009/02/born-believers/

We are not born believers -- we're only born with the ability and capacity (hard-wired) to believe in God, or gods (as demonstrated since the Ancient Near East civilization appeared)

As stated in the article, though, finding out why people believe in God doesn't suggest anything as regards the existence (of lack thereof) of God, but I do also recognize that the hypotheses regarding the origins of belief in God are numerous, and often contradictory, just like religions.

Logic tells us that a correct conclusion can only be deduced from a correct premise. If your premise is faulty, you're unlikely to arrive at correct conclusion.

Why couldn't 16th Century astronomers correctly explain the movement of the planets? Not because the theories were faulty, but because the premise (earth being the center of the Universe) was flawed, terribly.

Likewise, perhaps the reason why no one can explain why people believe in God is because the premise is incorrect. Change the premise, and you might find the factual answers.

 

[disappoint]

Sounds to me like you are trying to convert Retro Rob to Atheism.....or Proselytize him....I thought Atheism was not a religion...hmmmm


Yeah, it`s kind of awesome that God cares about each and every one of us!!
That's what the Bible says.......
But I guess if you don`t believe the Bible you wouldn`t know about God`s Love for us............

Who wrote the Bible?

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I can change the premise. It might not be what you expect though.


There is a god. It had a need. It needed servants who's minds were sharp. Creatures that reasoned.

So, it decided to create them. First, it created a world. It made very sure that nothing in this world could prove to a reasoning creature that it existed. Then it made sure that this world would create creatures that could reason.

But, because reason is easily misguided, it made sure that the creatures it created would, without thought, by instinct, tend to believe it existed - even though it made very sure that it was not a reasonable thing to do. This was intentional.

It did this because any of it's children who gave into instinct, who believed even though they shouldn't have would show themselves as unworthy.

To this creator, believing in it - even though it actually did exist - was a mark of ultimate failure. A rejection of reason, the entire reason the created existed. It had gone to great extents to ensure that any who believed in it's existence did so on grounds of instinct and guessing, and not of reason. To it, to be right for the wrong reasons was far, far worse then to be wrong for the right reasons.

Belief exists so this god creature can toss out the mortals who have rejected it's greatest gift, and are thus unworthy for any existence beyond this one.

Does that count as a different premise?

 

[alzan]

We are not born believers -- we're only born with the ability and capacity (hard-wired) to believe in God, or gods (as demonstrated since the Ancient Near East civilization appeared)

As stated in the article, though, finding out why people believe in God doesn't suggest anything as regards the existence (of lack thereof) of God, but I do also recognize that the hypotheses regarding the origins of belief in God are numerous, and often contradictory, just like religions.

Logic tells us that a correct conclusion can only be deduced from a correct premise. If your premise is faulty, you're unlikely to arrive at correct conclusion.

Why couldn't 16th Century astronomers correctly explain the movement of the planets? Not because the theories were faulty, but because the premise (earth being the center of the Universe) was flawed, terribly.

Likewise, perhaps the reason why no one can explain why people believe in God is because the premise is incorrect. Change the premise, and you might find the factual answers.

Right, we're not born believers but with the "hard-wired" ability to believe in a deity. Then our parents start brainwashing us with their beliefs before we've learned how to reason and use logic for ourselves so that even when we do learn logic and reason the belief is so engrained that to question it goes against our very fiber.

Once again people believe in G-d(s) because it's so engrained in our very fiber that it takes tremendous force of will and logic to break out of the pattern surrounding belief.

Once again correct; the premise of the existence of G-d(s) is faulty so our conclusions about the existence of G-d(s) is faulty.

Well that's because the Church wanted power and control over people; the Church punished those who thought and promulgated the idea that the Earth was not the center of the solar system or galaxy or universe.

I already explained why some people believe in G-d(s); their premise (the one engrained in children by their parents) is faulty. Changing the premise, i.e. breaking through the brainwashing, will lead people to the correct answer.

Whew, 2100+ posts just to get to that!

 

[witeken]

Logic tells us that a correct conclusion can only be deduced from a correct premise. If your premise is faulty, you're unlikely to arrive at correct conclusion.

[...]

Likewise, perhaps the reason why no one can explain why people believe in God is because the premise is incorrect. Change the premise, and you might find the factual answers.

Wrong. It's ridiculously easy to explain why people believe in god.

Your premise however, that there is a god, fails to explain why there are other gods than your own. In the end, you have to answer that question with the simple answer that people invented all those gods... except your own. There is no single reason why there should be a exception for your god, certainly not because your answer for the existence of all other religions and gods can also be applied to your own god/religion. The knife cuts both ways; there are no exceptions to the laws of physics.

 

[Retro Rob]

Your premise however, that there is a god, fails to explain why there are other gods than your own.

Your premise, that there is no god, fails to explain why there are believers in this world.

My premise, like yours, is only there to explain your belief, that of others.

In the end, you have to answer that question with the simple answer that people invented all those gods... except your own.

Nope, all I have to do is show why "my" God is the true God. By default, you'd show all others to be wrong since there can only be one Almighty God anyway.

Simply saying "your god is made up" doesn't mean anything. Really, that's the only answer atheists offer.

There is no single reason why there should be a exception for your god, certainly not because your answer for the existence of all other religions and gods can also be applied to your own god/religion. The knife cuts both ways.

See, this is predicated on the opinion that my answer would be "because your god is made up".

Additionally, this is where logic and reality clash. You can apply whatever you want to "my" religion, doesn't prove anything as regards the existence/non-existence of God. I can do the same, won't change anything.

Arguments in favor of a religion aren't designed to prove the existence of a God, they are designed to show why God is backing your religion, and not the religion of others.

 

[PingviN]

Your premise, that there is no god, fails to explain why there are believers in this world.

It doesn't even try to explain why people believe in something that doesn't exist. Neurologists and psychologists are trying to figure that out.
What function of our brain creates the idea that there is a God? Could be the same that tricks us into hearing voices in the wind or see faces in clouds and trees. The same abilities that let us draw conclusions and see patterns (even where they don't exist) can create delusions that are very hard to break away from. Especially if it's a delusion that was forced on someone at an early age.

 

[Retro Rob]

What function of our brain creates the idea that there is a God? Could be the same that tricks us into hearing voices in the wind or see faces in clouds and trees. The same abilities that let us draw conclusions and see patterns (even where they don't exist) can create delusions that are very hard to break away from. Especially if it's a delusion that was forced on someone at an early age.

Some of that is being debunked. There is no God Spot, first off:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419091223.htm

And this is what I mean by "change your premise". Assuming God is made-up in one part the brain will lead to more pseudoscientific conclusions.

There is no doubt that spirituality rests in the brain, but I believe God included this ability so that we were capable of worshipping him.

 

[witeken]

Your premise, that there is no god, fails to explain why there are believers in this world.

My premise, like yours, is only there to explain your belief, that of others.

Wrong. There are many natural ways for people to come to the conclusion that there are gods, like how people thought the earth was flat or the earth was the middle of the universe. When people are faced with things they can't explain, it doesn't take much to come up with stories (certainly not if you have time ). People love stories, and people started thinking they were real and did all sorts of strange things with it (even sacrifices).

No god is the most sensible explanation and doesn't contradict anything and there's no evidence against it.

Nope, all I have to do is show why "my" God is the true God. By default, you'd show all others to be wrong since there can only be one Almighty God anyway.

Exactly, but despite the fact that there are billions of people who believe or have believed in one or more gods, there is not a single piece of evidence. Therefor, there's no reason why the most sensible explanation (no supernatural etc.) and also the explanation with the most evidence, isn't correct.

Like you said earlier, wrong premises lead to wrong conclusions. The best way to gain knowledge is not to use any premises at all. Science starts with no knowledge at all, and if you think you have, you'll have to prove it. That's sort of Occam's Razor.

So show me why your god is the true god...

Simply saying "your god is made up" doesn't mean anything. Really, that's the only answer atheists offer.

I'm not saying that that is the answer. But that is the conclusion that you make for all other gods. From the famous quote: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

See, this is predicated on the opinion that my answer would be "because your god is made up".

That's not an opinion, but a logical conclusion when you say that there's only 1 god.

Additionally, this is where logic and reality clash. You can apply whatever you want to "my" religion, doesn't prove anything as regards the existence/non-existence of God. I can do the same, won't change anything.

Yes, it does. If your religion/god can't explain why other gods -- like gods/religions that were invented before your religion/god came into existence -- exists, that means it can't explain reality and is fundamentally failed, in fact disproved. Unless you do prove that your god exists, but since that hasn't ever happened, it logically follows that god doesn't exist.

 

[witeken]

There is no doubt that spirituality rests in the brain, but I believe God included this ability so that we were capable of worshipping him.

God didn't do anything. Humans exist because of natural selection.

 

[Retro Rob]

Right, we're not born believers but with the "hard-wired" ability to believe in a deity.

Some of the strongest evidence for the existence of God is right in this statement and the article linked.

Because we're all individuals, we tend to create many gods for ourselves. This doesn't mean one God doesn't exists -- this just shows how deeply the Creator ingrained spirituality within us.

 

[PingviN]

Some of that is being debunked. There is no God Spot, first off:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120419091223.htm

And this is what I mean by "change your premise". Assuming God is made-up in one part the brain will lead to more pseudoscientific conclusions.

There is no doubt that spirituality rests in the brain, but I believe God included this ability so that we were capable of worshipping him.

I'm not saying there is a god-spot. I'm saying that there are functions in our brain that causes us to imagine things.

I'm only assuming God is made up because there is no proof of God's existence. That's how SCIENCE works. Throughout all the thousands of years mankind has worshiped Gods, never ever ever has there been an inkling of evidence of their existence.

For the sake of argument, assume we assume God exists. Where does that lead us? We still can't prove he exists. We can't prove we didn't evolve and have a shared ancestry with all other living things on the planet. We can't prove there is an eternal soul. We can't prove there is a heaven. We can't prove there is a hell. We can't prove that God is the Christian God and not Odin, Brahma or Allah.

Blind faith leads you nowhere.