Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

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

999 replies

MosEisley · 15/01/2012 22:49

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?

OP posts:
Snorbs · 26/01/2012 12:14

If you followed the link from that wiki page to the page on the story of The Eloquent Peasant you'll find references to a variety of translations as well as images of the original hieroglyphs. And the papyrus on which it was written is in the British Museum.

What else do you need to see as evidence that the essence of the Golden Rule has been around for a very, very long time?

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 12:17

Yeah, and tbh it's a bit of a blind alley anyway, thinking of it. Proving that any given material is pre-Hebrew or whatever doesn't really say anything new about the Bible writers except that the adapted and used ideas that were common, which we know already. It's just not a question that I have really come across.

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 12:20

Sorry Snorbs, I'm not being deliberately obtuse - it's just that I've read through the story summary there, the refs and links and can't find the literary parallel. Am I just not seeing it? Could be the codeine...as I say, I'm genuinely interested and would like to know more about this...

notfluffyatall · 26/01/2012 12:23

It's entirely relevant when someone claims that we need the bible foe a moral code. The very basic moral code which is found in the bible is not unique to the bible, in fact the bible contradicts the very essence of The Golden Rule consistently. The rest of it us all about who you can and can't have sex with and some very dodgy morality about woman and animals.

notfluffyatall · 26/01/2012 12:24

iPhone errors again, sorry.

Zideq · 26/01/2012 12:34

As a starter which God in particular are we talking about? At a guess we are talking the Christian God in that case there are all sorts of issues as in the unhistoric and unscientific nature of the Bible which parts should be taken literally which parts should be read as parables, then you have the question of the authorship of the Bible...

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 12:42

Well...it depends how you see people tbh. If you see ppl as created in the image of God and therefore bearing some kind of resemblance to the nature ofGod (I know that you don't, but just follow the thought stream for a moment!) Smile...if you see ppl as created in the image of God, then it follows to say that yes, you'd expect there to be something of God in all ppl, some good whose ultimate source is God. So where does that leave the Boble as a moral guide? One theologian says the Bible is 'codified experience' - I.e. The humanity of ppl gives rise to the Bible. BIM the Bible is hugely complex - even a single book of it us hugely complex and in many cases, the results of generations of thinking rather than being written in one go (this is more true of the OT, although the NT seems to be redacted in quite a few places too). It'd be so neat and tidy to talk about 'the Bible' as though it speaks with one voice - but it doesn't, it's messier than that, because ppl are messier than that- which goes back to what I said earlier about how ppl need each other to understand God more fully. That's what I believe, anyway.

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 12:43

Aaaggh, sorry about enormous block of text there!

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 12:46

Zideq, what you mean by historic and scientific are determined by the Enlightenment, and obviously the Bible was completed before then - so of course it's no either historic or scientific, as we currently understand those words.

Zideq · 26/01/2012 12:54

HolofernesesHead, not sure I understand what you are getting at are you suggesting that all the books of the Bible are parables and have no scientific or historical reference? Because as I undersatnd it things like the massacre of the innocence are believed by the faithful to have happended although it is disputed by history scholars.

LongWayRound · 26/01/2012 13:04

if you see ppl as created in the image of God and therefore bearing some kind of resemblance to the nature of God ...if you see ppl as created in the image of God, then it follows to say that yes, you'd expect there to be something of God in all ppl, some good whose ultimate source is God.

Equally, and just as plausibly, you could say that God has been created in the image of people. So it follows that the God described in the scriptures of various religions and by individual believers reflects what individuals and societies hold to be important. That includes morals and ethics which are common to pretty much all religions, as well as beliefs which seem to have been created solely for the purpose of distinguishing "them" from "us" and justifying, if not persecution of "them", at least assigning "them" second-class status.

It also explains the confusion and self-contradictions in religious traditions. That's not God challenging us, it's just people being confused.

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 13:05

Zideq - it's a bit more complicated than that IMO. I believe there was definitely a historical Jesus - lots of evidence for that, and I believe that there were historical events behind biblical stories like the Exodus and the Exile. But the way the stories are told is such that historical veracity as we understand it in 2012 is not the priority, but rather, the stories are told in such a way to help readers understand the significance of those events, which means that in the Bible, history and theology are intertwined, inseparable.

There may be bits that are more historical, and more that are more theological - but what I mean is that the Bible writers' concept of 'history' was radically different to ours, so if we judge the Bible by post Enlightenment standards, we'll misunderstand what they are really saying. Does that make sense?

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 13:08

Long way round, yup, that is one way of looking at it! Obviously not the Christian way though (which is me, so I'm going to go with the Christian way!) Smile

As I keep saying, where you see contradiction, I see variety, and variety which speaks of acceptance of the other, and freedom to explore...

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 13:11

Also sorry, meant to add, the New Testament is all about destroying the divisions that create a them and us - it's harshest words are for those who create a them and us and stop ppl from being part of the people of God, or make it hard for them to be so.

notfluffyatall · 26/01/2012 13:11

".if you see ppl as created in the image of God"

At what stage throughout our evolutionary process are we god's image? Single celled organisms? Apes?

Can you see the vanity and arrogance in the assumption that we were all created and that everything around us was created with purely us in mind? Is it so difficult to accept we're just monkeys in shoes, animals?

And even if we were created (fuck, that was hard to say), god created everything, think about this: The planet we live on is about 4.5 billion years old, life has existed on the planet for about 2 billion years (bit of an afterthought were we?). Life was pretty much left to get on with it during in the last 2 billion years, species evolved, became extinct, millions more than exist today (did he fuck them up so scrapped them?), but 2000 years ago god decided to step in to sort us all out? Really? I mean, fucking really?

CheerfulYank · 26/01/2012 13:15

Well, if the earth and humans in some form exist for another few billions of years, then 2,000 years ago could really be quite early in relative terms. :)

LongWayRound · 26/01/2012 13:20

Holo - I also see variety. I only see it as contradiction in the context of religion: it doesn't bother me that people hold different views on all kinds of things, what does bother me is when people say that their view is right because it says so in the Bible (or the Quran, we've been concentrating on Christianity too much :) ): and then you ask, well, it says this in the Bible (or the Quran) but it also says this, so which is right? If your scriptures are the Word of God, how come God's word is so confused?
I'm much happier believing in the complexity and variety of human nature, than trying to force my mind to believe the impossible in order to understand why an omniscient God couldn't have made his message clear.

FreddoBaggyMac · 26/01/2012 13:21

I haven't read this whole thread (and am not going to as I've vowed never to get too caught up in mumsnet religious discussions ever again!). However I just wanted to comment that the opening questions asks 'Why do some people FIND IT HARD to believe in God?' This is not the same as 'Why do some people not believe in God?'

Ultimately people make the choice whether they believe in God or not. People who 'find it hard to believe' have made the choice to believe but struggle to justify the decision to themselves. I think that would be true of most believers at various times, sometimes it's harder to believe and sometimes it's easier. The interesting question is why does someone stick with their decision to believe even in the more difficult times?

For me personally It's not the big catastrophies in life that knock my belief so much as the smaller day to day worries and sadnesses. I suppose what keeps me going in my belief is that I've decided that no-one can know for sure whether there is a God, but (imo):

  1. It's the most obvious explanation that there is some order behind our universe (IMO - I know it's not shared by many on here!)
  2. It helps to provide me with a sense of right and wrong.
  3. it helps me to reflect on whether I'm abiding by that code of right or wrong.
  4. I have nothing to lose by believing, and everything to gain.

I just wanted to make this comment as the small amount of this thread that I've read seems to be talking more about those who have made the choice not to believe rather than those who struggle to believe... just my opinion, but perhaps I'm just in a very pedantic mood today Smile

Zideq · 26/01/2012 13:26

HolofernesesHead, this just sounds like a cop out to me, and the lots of evidence for a historic Jesus is stretching it a bit given his importance many of these evidences don't even relate to Jesus and are under dispute but I accept that arguments of silence are on very shaky ground.

Do you belive in the virgin birth, the resurrection etc, and who tells you which bits are historical or theological or are you free to interpret at will?

notfluffyatall · 26/01/2012 13:28

Ah but Cheerful with the way your god keeps messing about with his universe we're unlikely to last another few billion years. Tell him to stop throwing galaxies and meteorites at us will you? Wink

notfluffyatall · 26/01/2012 13:30

There is lots of evidence David Icke exists, doesn't mean he's the messiah.

FreddoBaggyMac · 26/01/2012 13:33

There are a lot of scientists on here aren't there? Personally I don't think you necessarily need to have all the evidence to believe something is true... sometimes it's just not possible and you have to go with FEELINGS!!! That is why it's sometimes important to rely on faith rather than science (IMO!!)

HolofernesesHead · 26/01/2012 13:34

Zideq, to answer that properly would take a while! I have to go now but just wanted to say that I do know what I'm talking about, I've read a lot and thought a lot on these things:) I don't know everything about the Bible - no one does.

Have you got an interest in the Bible? (genuine question, not sarcastic in the least - just wondering why you're interested.)

GrimmaTheNome · 26/01/2012 13:34

the New Testament is all about destroying the divisions that create a them and us

oh, such as "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law '? Maybe not the passage you had in mind.

If the NT was about destroying divisions, sorry to say it's failed miserably. Even within Christianity, there is horrible sectarianism.

GrimmaTheNome · 26/01/2012 13:39

I don't think you necessarily need to have all the evidence to believe something is true...

Pretty similar to what I said upthread (I don't mind you haven't read itSmile). Faith has nothing to do with evidence and rationality.

... sometimes it's just not possible and you have to go with FEELINGS!!!
That is why it's sometimes important to rely on faith rather than science (IMO!!)

There our opinions differ. Relying on faith when there is no evidence supporting that faith is, to unashamedly borrow a good metaphor, building your house on sand. I'd rather build mine on the rock of reality.