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?

For the OP (and anyone else who might be interested) I find John Henry Newman's explanation of faith and its foundations very useful (this explains why people DO believe I suppose, whereas a reliance purely on evidence might explain why they don't):

Unlike in science, Newman argued, evidence is not the foundation for faith. Newman defended the rationality of ?simple faith.? Still Newman tried to find an adequate answer to the problem of the certitude of the assent of faith, and he dedicated part two of the Grammar of Assent to explain how a person reaches certitude. He called this the illative faculty or sense. This is a natural mode of reasoning which in unconscious and implicit; it goes from concrete thing to other things, not from propositions to propositions as formal inference or logic.

A man reaches certitude through this illative sense. A skeptic might reply that this is tantamount to a leap of faith, but there is no such leap because the assent of faith has a cumulative and pain staking dimension; we grow into a conviction, rather than leap into it. Newman used the example of a polygon inscribed in a circle. As its sides become smaller it tends to become the circle. It never becomes the circle but the mind closes the gap.

Faith is a personal act (not a subjective one) by which a person apprehends religious truths from others. As noted, for Newman, humility?a child-like spirit?is a necessary condition for belief. Without humility one is incapable of believing in God; a person establishes his own universe and close him or herself to any supernatural reality.

Grimma hadn't read your post before I posted my previous, but my posting is my response to you. Some might say that was God's will

I should not have said relying on FEELINGS as it does sound too wishy washy... relying on 'illative sense' is a much better description.

HolofernesesHead, I have a scholarly interest in the history of Religions in particular the composition of religious texts. Your form of liberal Christianity has become very popular as advancements in science and changing moral standards have eroded many religious tenants. Not wanting to put words in your mouth I would like to say if you don?t believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection or the other miracles in the Jesus narrative I would question what exactly you have faith in?

relying on 'illative sense' is a much better description.

not really, because very few people would have a clue what you mean by it. I'd never come across it before - does anyone other than Cardinal Newman use it? OK...'It is the faculty of the human mind that closes the logic-gap in concrete situations and thus allowing for assent' ...

'Newman recognised that there are dangers associated with using the Illative Sense. In using it one may become vulnerable to superstition and eccentricity. But superstition is held in check, Newman suggests, by the moral element in the act of faith, that is, holiness, obedience, and the sense of duty will safeguard faith from becoming mere superstition.'

Hm. his 'safeguard' doesn't actually stop faith from being superstition, it gives some value beyond the mere superstitious. (though to unbelievers, holiness and obedience to a non-existent god are dubious virtues)

Oh that's exciting, Zideq! (your academic work, I mean). What are you working on? PM me if you'd rather not say here :)

I didn't have time to say earlier, but yes I do believe in the virgin birth, the incarnation, and the physical resurrection of Jesus. Those beliefs matter hugely to me. I'm not sure if 'liberal' is the best word to describe me, but I'm not too fussed about labels like that really. I stand up in church, say the Nicene Creed and mean every word of it.

"I do believe in the virgin birth, the incarnation, and the physical resurrection of Jesus."

Is there any other area of your life that you choose to completely suspend all reason? No? I thought not.

HolofernesesHead, apologies I should have have made it clear I am not a proffesional acedemic I just have an interest in the topic, how do you decide which bits of the Bible to belive literally, for example do you belive in the biblical flood narrative?

Suspend reason? I think I just see life v differently from you, that's all.'Reason' seems to suggest that we trust our senses to ascertain truth - do you think that's right? Whereas I see faith as supra-rational - it doesn't need verifying by our senses because it is beyond them. Which is, incidentally, partly where I think ID gets it wrong, by reducing God to the merely rational...

ID is unscientific, the pillar of irreducible complexity has been thoroughly discredited.

I'm just popping out so can't respond in full but just before I go...

ID = reducing god to rational..... Lololololololroflroflrofl I think I just pee'd a bit!

I find the idea of the final judgement and afterlife completely ludicrous. Did a supreme being really go to all the trouble of creating the vastness of the universe and the comparitive insignificance of planet Earth (and burying all those dinisaur skeletons, etc) just to have a mechanism to decide who gets to go in his playground ?

Notfluffy, glad to give you a laugh! What I mean is, it's pretending / trying to be rational, or at least sound so.

Zideq, glad to talk about the Bible - how do I decide which bits are more historical than others? I work blimmin' hard to find out, that's how! I'm off sick at the mo but I normally spend my days working on the Bible, mostly the NT.

The flood story is really interesting. There are lots of similar stories from across the Ancient Near East but there are some distinctly Hebrew features of the one we have in Genesis - which is actually 2 stories redacted together. The God in Genesis is much more personal, much more involved than in other flood stories. No OT scholars try to 'date' the flood - because it's impossible (although they do try to date, eg, the Exodus).Personally I'm more inclined to read the flood story as myth, although you could say the fact that there are so many flood stories from the ANE might be evidence of some 'folk memory' of something that did happen way back when. Waters and floods are used a lot in the Bible to symbolise chaos, and the creation story in Gen. 1 is more about creation out of chaos than out of nothing - the belief in creation out of nothing is pretty late (later than any OT text). So I get much more meaning out of it symbolically than trying to take it literally. What do you think about it?

'Reason' seems to suggest that we trust our senses to ascertain truth - do you think that's right?

Heck no, human senses are notoriously unreliable and limited. I want more verification than that, not less!

So how does reason work, Grimma? (serious question)

Logic and evidence, for a start, I suppose.

Okay...so, following that thought, how does one determine what constitutes logic and evidence? (I'm not trying to be clever or arsey here, I really want to know how this works. I'm a lifelong believer so my worldview is v different to yours, so I'm just trying to understand i.)

HolofernesesHead, so you personally cherry pick, for reference while the flood narrative does appear in many religions it has no imperial evidence. The story of Noah?s Ark is simply impossible if you take into account animal distribution, the fossil record?

Sorry Zideq, you're not being quite clear there - are those your opinions re the flood? (fossil records etc, of which I know precisely nothing!).

As for cherry picking - not quite sure what you mean or how you got there. Do you think that believing on a historical basis for one bit of the Bible means you have to so for all of it? If so, do you see it as 'all or nothing'? And if do, are you 'all' or are you 'nothing'? As I said earlier, I can see the appeal of that neat and tidy way of thinking - but it doesn't hold water intellectually for me.

HolofernesesHead, in regard to the great flood it is a fact that a great flood isn't supported by the fossil record etc.

You are understanding me exactly, what you are doing is cherry picking parts of your faith you find palpable I find it dishonest as it gives you a get out clause to all the nonsese for want of a better word in the Bible.

HolofernesesHead,

Do you belive that the Bible is the devine word of God?

Oh, so you're a non-believer! Honestly, that was not clear from your posts.

Read what I say about the flood again. There is nothing dishonest in there. I'm not interested in fossils with regard to the flood because I think they're irrelevant. If, I repeat if something happened way back when that got remembered as a mighty flood, that is no problem to me. If Gen. 6 -9 are mythology, that's not a problem either. So I can't see what the problem is - what's there to be dishonest about?

Why do you ask if I believe the Bible to be the word of God? What ar your motives for asking? Be honest!!!!

If the Bible is devine why does it need to be interpreted in such a way as you have described?

The dishonest part is in the way you cherry pick your religion.

Ah, Newman. I studied him for my thesis. Fond memories.

Oh and I believe in the resurrection and all that too :)

Zideq, I don't know your religious or cultural background, but please listen carefully when I say that my religion does not require me to believe in the literal, 'scientific' factual-proovability (made up word, I know) of every single word of the Bible.

It does not work like that.

It is very different to that.

Cherry-picking is quite an offensive way of saying that I'm not living my religion according to your criteria, which, I repeat, are not the criteria of my religion.

I could go on to talk about why the biblical writers wrote as they did and wanted to hand down what they did hand down, but I've said a lot already.

If you're convinced I'm dishonest, I doubt I'll persuade you otherwise.