Why do some people find it hard to believe in God?

[MosEisley]

I believe in God.

However, I am attending an adult confirmation class and we have been asked to consider why some people do not believe in God. DH and I came up with:

• there is no absolute proof of God's existence
• they are rebelling against a strict organised religion that they can't accept as literallly true

If you know someone who doesn't believe in God, why don't they?

"There are lots of scientists who are Christians"

I think that's a bit vague. A study in 1998 showed that only 5% of leading scientists in the UK believed in god. I would only imagine that the figure has decreased markedly along with the general population in the subsequent 14 years.

"God is the reason why there is anything. He doesn't exist like other objects in the universe, because he is prior to it and separate from it. The universe is made out of him, but it is not him. He is in the universe but he is not of it."

See, it's waffle like this that gets my goat. It's meaningless twaddle.

'why is there something rather than nothing?'.

Maths. Infinite number of possibilities, we/ this world/ Solar System etc are part of just one of them.

Where's this proof please, may I see it? Where do you get your knowledge that

" He doesn't exist like other objects in the universe, because he is prior to it and separate from it. The universe is made out of him, but it is not him. He is in the universe but he is not of it."

What is the point that I am missing so spectacularly?

There are still literally millions of Christians who do not accept evolution. Here are some depressing survey results from the US. Do these people not count as "thinking Christians" to you? I suspect they'd strongly disagree with you.

You are right in saying that evolution cannot answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing." But that's because that question has nothing to do with evolution. The science of the origin of the universe is cosmology, and the science of the origin of life is abiogenesis. The wikipedia articles I've linked to give a reasonable overview of current scientific thought.

But you're right in saying that science hasn't got any rock-solid answers for both the origin of the universe and exactly how life started on earth. There are a number of theories and, so far, the evidence suggests that certain of those theories are more probable than the others. But that might well change if evidence appears that contradicts those favoured theories. That's how science works, after all - you observe something, you come up with ideas that might explain those observations, and then you come up with experiments that might prove or, more accurately, disprove those ideas. If, despite years of trying, no-one is able to come up with results that show a particular theory to be wrong then that theory becomes regarded as almost certainly correct.

How is it philosophically ignorant to question the existence of god based on lack of evidence for his existence? Are we not supposed to question his existence at all? Or are we only supposed to do so within very narrow confines of allowed questioning?

If god wants us to know him and to love him, why is he so elusive? As an omnipotent being he could write "GOD EXISTS AND THE KJV BIBLE IS TRUE" in the clouds so that everyone could see and everyone could discover the righteous path. But he doesn't. Why not?

That's so odd Snorbs. I have only known one American who was a creationist. One.

Be grateful for that cheerful, they all live in Texas anyway

""God is the reason why there is anything. He doesn't exist like other objects in the universe, because he is prior to it and separate from it. The universe is made out of him, but it is not him. He is in the universe but he is not of it."

See, it's waffle like this that gets my goat. It's meaningless twaddle."

No, it's speaking in abstract terms, much as philosophers do.

"Where's this proof please, may I see it?" There are lots of things that exist but the existence of which cannot be empirically proved. Love, for instance. Or justice. And I did not say that the existence of God can be empirically proved. It cannot.

Science just can't answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' because it's not the kind of question that science asks. That doesn't mean its not a good question or that it can't be satisfactorily answered outwith the domain of science.

"There are still literally millions of Christians who do not accept evolution." I think, if you were to read a little into the history of the nineteenth century, you would find that I am correct that most thinking Christians accepted evolution within a few years.

However, unrelated theological developments within certain American denominations meant that in America biblical literalism began to become a cause celebre towards the end of the nineteenth century, leading to the debates about teaching Darwinism in schools and the current situation.

I also think you will find that in the UK and the rest of Europe most Christians accept evolution. Christians are quite various in their ideas you know.

I've seen reports of surveys showing that slightly MORE people in the UK refuse to accept evolution than in the US. It always absolutely boggles my mind - quite a few evolutionary deniers will come out if you post the question on MN.

It may be how the questions are phrased - maybe the balance is different if you ask 'do you positively believe in creationism' as opposed to 'do you disbelieve in evolution' IYSWIM. (Not that any survey would use such badly written questions! )

Saying "most thinking Christians accepted evolution" is as meaningless as saying "most true Christians rejected evolution". Automatically discounting those who did not go along with a particular and highly contentious viewpoint as somehow lesser ("unthinking") Christians and therefore unworthy of attention is quite divisive and somewhat misleading. And let's not forget that it took the Catholic church (who could probably lay claim to being the most popular brand of Christianity in Europe) a good hundred years to publicly accept that Darwin was probably right.

I fully accept that different Christians believe different things. Which in itself is quite interesting. Going back to the motives of god and what he actually expects from us, one could suggest that the fact that everyone believes something different indicates that either a) god's rubbish at getting his message across, or b) it doesn't matter what you believe and you might as well use the bible as a doorstop for all the attention it deserves.

Science just can't answer the question 'why is there something rather than nothing?' because it's not the kind of question that science asks.

Sorry, that just displays scientific ignorance - its exactly the sort of question some scientists ask.

As to philosophy - there are many useful and thought provoking philosophical concepts but a lot of it is meaningless twaddle. Some of the stuff that sounds deep has within its verbage many hidden shallows.

madhair - going back to ID for a moment - niminy is right it's a blind alley. ID isn't simply evolution but with a creator behind it. (That's what I used to believe long before ID was invented - if you believe in a god then that's what anyone with an ounce of respect for evidence will believe). ID was developed to try to infiltrate religion into american schools; it sounds scientific but isn't. It's what I said - intellectually dishonest

Anyone who doubts the ludicrousness of ID should watch a bit if William Lane Craig, I mean really listen.

"As to philosophy - there are many useful and thought provoking philosophical concepts but a lot of it is meaningless twaddle. Some of the stuff that sounds deep has within its verbage many hidden shallows."

Now that's what I call a sweeping statement! And one that does you no credit, because it implies that you don't know what you are talking about. I am sure you have really read a lot of philosophy from the pre-Socratic Greeks to contemporary analytic philosophy, taking in Kant, Hegel and Heidegger. But generalisations like that one make you look as if you haven't.

Snorbs, I don't agree that because Christians believe different things it means God is rubbish at getting his meaning across. It could equally well, and more likely mean that we are rubbish at understanding his meaning. Christians believe some different things, but I think we are all agreed on the essentials. We are all followers of the risen Christ, we all believe in the triune God, we all believe in the forgiveness of sins, we look forward to the coming of God's kingdom of love and justice.

"It could equally well, and more likely mean that we are rubbish at understanding his meaning."

That just reinforces what I often say, a god that can actually punish you if you fuck up ought to make himself a tad clearer. This god you describe is therefore a c**t!

And as for a large chunk of philosophy, they don't refer to it as 'Naval Gazing' for nothing.

Did you read what I said about the forgiveness of sins?

It wasn't sweeping, I said 'some'. I'm not claiming to be an expert on philosophy but you don't have to look very far to find philosophical edifices founded on baseless assertions (in among perfectly respectable logic).

'God is the reason why there is anything. He doesn't exist like other objects in the universe, because he is prior to it and separate from it. The universe is made out of him, but it is not him. He is in the universe but he is not of it. '

Does that stand up to scrutiny? Start with the first two words 'God is'- unproven, unprovable assertion.

But- and I'm sorry if this sounds simplistic- a lot of the sins that Christians seek forgiveness for are sins made up by God!

'Naval Gazing'
That'd be seamen with telescopes

The notion that we need our 'sins' forgiven by God is another baseless assertion.

If I do someone wrong, I should atone to them and ask their forgiveness. You don't need to invoke a third party.

Oops,

Going to giggle about that all day.

"Did you read what I said about the forgiveness of sins?"

That's just your interpretation of it, I think god made it very clear what's going to happen to unbelievers. I don't feel like philosophising about what he 'really' meant when I believe it's pretty clear.

Grimma I have to put my hand up and admit that I don't read awfully widely on ID and evolution and all that, firstly because my mind just doesn't work particularly scientifically, and secondly because it just doesn't matter to me that much. From what I have read and studied I am perfectly happy with evolution and an original creator. If that makes me sound ignorant and ill-read, so be it. We all have areas we are more gifted in

I'm not feeling well today. I will join in - enjoying this discussion a lot

"Start with the first two words 'God is'- unproven, unprovable assertion."

I think you'll find that 'God is not' is also unproven and unprovable.

That's the problem with insisting that there has to be positive proof for things. It's impossible to provide -- as that notorious (and atheist) philosopher David Hume noticed.

Yes, God sets the rules, and we all fail. But we try to get better. But the alternative is moral relativisim and that is a very depressing thought because it leads to 'I'll just do what I want'.

"...so may not make much sense."

So what's new my fluffy friend?

That's the problem with insisting that there has to be positive proof for things. It's impossible to provide

Nonsense. It's only impossible to provide positive proof for things that don't actually exist. The onus is always on the side which claims the existence of something for which there is no evidence. It may be a problem for you but it isn't for me . Teapots and unicorns...

But the alternative is moral relativisim and that is a very depressing thought because it leads to 'I'll just do what I want'.
no, that's not the alternative for me. Can't you comprehend a proper set of ethics being worked out without it having been imposed by a supernatural being? There's nothing depressing about that!