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?

Just watched Sagan, whom I like. I certainly have no problem with any part of anything he said there - I think he says some v. important stuff about the potential for human-created disaster. I am particularly concerned about environmental disaster. So lovely film - not quite sure how it relates to this discussion though...?

"So lovely film - not quite sure how it relates to this discussion though...?"

It was entirely connected to my post where I said "Our personal existence is completely irrelevant on the grand scheme of things, we are a particle of carbon in an infinite universe."

We did the 'What is the meaning behind our existence' pages ago. I said then we make our own meaning, there is no grand plan. There is no purpose to our existence, in fact as Sagan said, had things panned out just one tiny fraction differently then 'we' wouldn't be here at all. Surely some supernatural being would have had to provide us with a purpose, I'm pretty sure you're notion of purpose came from your faith.

I suppose if you want to be really basic about it, our 'purpose' is the propagation of our species, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you're getting at.

Right...the thing is, we seem to be talking past each other a bit here. What I mean is that Sagan doesn't say anything we haven't said already.

Sagan's film illustrates what I said earlier - science can tell us what is (and what was), and how things happen. So that's wonderful and illuminating and I have no problem with any part of it. What Sagan's film doesn't say is why this all happened. You might say, as in fact you do, that 'why' is a pointless question, that there is no answer. But as far as I can make out, 'science' does not say that, it simply describes and deduces (for which I am grateful).

So again, sorry to push the point, but to say 'There is no purpose' is a proposition which science can't answer. Philosophy and theology can, so let's be clear that what we are doing here is talking philosophy / theology, not science. So, again, on what do you base your propositions?

I have no interest in navel (Spelt correctly this time) gazing or especially theology. Sorry, wrong poster for that

And yet you assert philosophical propositions, with no thought as to their validity or provenance...

Right I'm off to church. See you!

All my instincts tell me there is no purpose to our existence, a purpose would have to have been given to us, that would entail a supernatural entity of some description. I don't believe this is possible. Enough? I'm really not good at wording this stuff ;-)

Philosophical instincts??

If there were a purpose to life, it would have to be possible to fulfil that purpose as a newborn baby, or else the lives of those that die very young would be purposeless. I guess you could say that although it's not pleasant to think of the lives of babies as having less purpose than those of adults, that's the decision we make if we allow abortion. But within a religious worldview, abortion is usually discouraged, because of the view of each individual having a purpose (and being precious to God). Somehow Christianity (elements of) arrived at the point of teaching that God's grace, bestowed during baptism, was needed for that purpose to be fulfilled, with the result that the lives of those who died before baptism were effectively purposeless. I'm thankful (to whom?) that this is no longer the teaching of any part of Christianity.

If the purpose of life is to make positive and loving relationships with others, then newborns are extremely capable of doing this and I can see that if God is considered to be pure love, then newborns are closer to the image of God than many of us. Where does this leave original sin, though? Is original sin now thought to seep in over the preschool years due to extended contact with the world? If we are closest to fulfilling life's purpose as a newborn, what's the point of the rest of life and our development ? It's not as if we can avoid developing, or should. All very well for Christ to suffer little children to come to him, but you do need some adults around in the world.

One of the many confused steps in my losing my faith was a conversation with a pleasant young Calvinist explaining the evil inherent in babies. Encountering Judaism, which tends to suggest that children are born neither good nor evil, was much more like it. However, ultimately I didn't convert to Judaism, and finding such a different take on God contributed to me feeling that if it were possible to see God so differently, there wasn't one God eternal and indivisible out there, there were lots - or none.

Wow, only just able to come back to thread, and taken me ages to catch up ! Really interesting discussion. And notfluffy, sorry you were upset that I liked Grimma's discussion style. I have to say that I'm really not at all uncomfortable that atheists are voicing their opinions - my dh is as atheist as you can get, and we have some great debates ! Still have a very happy marriage though ! I have said several times that I am happy to accept that I may be totally wrong. The only thing I do have a problem with are people - on either side of the debate - who say they categorically KNOW that they are right and dismiss any opposing views. And I know christians can be just as guilty of that as atheists.

Most people cannot answer the question of whether or not there is a purpose to life or not because for most people life's purpose cannot be neatly defined or directly articulated. That is why we have art, poetry and music. Some people, both religious and atheists, will have some kind of rational debate about purpose, but for many it is an emotional state, quite distinct from morality.

A number of religious people now propose that in the absence of a rational argument that people are in disagreement over for why god does or does not exist, they will talk about a god gene, or a feeling about god that they can experience and other people can't.

But I don't think it is like that. God isn't like some mountain in Japan that you have seen and I haven't. It isn't like if you have all of these immensely strong personal, emotional and spiritual feelings about the mountain that I lack because I've never seen it, and if I was capable of going there I would feel them too.

Almost all humans, whether they believe in God or not, have a great capacity to feel deeply, to feel poignancy and transcendence, to feel things that cannot be articulated. And just as many religious people feel the great spiritual, poignant, personal and emotional resonance in believing in God, I find that attempting to believe in God strickens my emotional, poignant, spiritual and emotional states. The depth of my feeling that God does not exist is as great as your depth of feeling that he does.

So I dislike the idea that atheists somehow have less depth and just faff about with a bit of moral philosophy, politics or science. We're still people with the same wide human capacities that religious people have.

Well said ClothesOfSand I couldn't have said it better myself.... no, I really couldn't

I just can't get my head around this 'purpose' thing at all, I don't feel the need to philosophise about why we're here. There isn't a why as far as I'm concerned. We're the happy result of millions of mutations that could so easily have mutated to produce something entirely different to 'us' given different conditions. I'm a monkey in shoes, no more, no less.

"And notfluffy, sorry you were upset that I liked Grimma's discussion style. "

The only difference between Grimma and I is that she has experience of faith that I don't, she can therefore empathise, I can't. She's also 'nicer' than me, that's not to say I've been disrespectful, I don't believe I have.

Ooh, am I really? Or is it just I have better taste in MN name?

I don't think there is a 'why' either - I agree with joan and notfluffy's comments. Sure, philosophy and religion can attempt to explain the 'why' questions, but that doesn't mean that there actually is a why. Inventing a question and discussing it doesn't make it a valid question.

No, you really are. Not much of a com

Bugger, sorry posted accidentally. I should stop using iPhone.

Was saying, that's not much of a compliment Grimma because I just really don't do 'nice' too well.

You're also far more patient than I am!

Clothes, I would never dream of claiming that the one who feels the strongest is the one who is right, on any subject, including God! (Maybe especially God?)

Grimma, 'inventing a question then discussing it doesn't make it a valid question' - well, okay, but that makes faith sound arbitrary, and of course we all know that the questions of faith have defined human life for centuries, probably for all of human history. This stuff is central! (by the way, who in your view gets to decide what is a valid question?)

Your statement also makes it sound as if faith is a cerebral activity, which of course is not true. Okay, some weirdos like me just love talking about God till the cows come home, but mostly, faith is a lived experience rather than a subject of discussion. So it's not that some person invented the question of God, and other people have been avidly discussing that question since then - it's that from time immemorial, prople have reached out for God and tried to live out faith in communities.

Original sin - I see it more as a genetic / inherited condition rather than a value judgement on any baby / person, in that we can't escape the badness of the world however hard we tried. IMO 'original sin' means that all people are affected by sin, some more as victims than perpetrators.

"IMO 'original sin' means that all people are affected by sin, some more as victims than perpetrators."

Did you just make that up? It takes a fair bit of twisting interpretation to come up with that.

HH, I wasn't aiming my post at you in particular. I was just responding to a variety of stuff on the thread, some from 200 posts ago, as I read the whole thing in one go.

who in your view gets to decide what is a valid question?

I'm not sure if anyone gets to decide, but anyone can question the validity.

Your statement also makes it sound as if faith is a cerebral activity
I didn't mean to imply that (have explicitly said faith is more an emotional than rational thing). Wasn't really talking about 'faith' but about religious/philosophical discussions of 'why' which are cereberal aren't they?

Notfluffy, of course I didn't just make it up! I've been pondering these things for years! And I could tell you you my academic and churchy credentials, but I'd rather not tbh. I like being anonymous on MN!

IMO although Dawkins would probably hate me for saying this, I think that what he calls 'the selfish gene' is exactly what Augustine calls 'original sin'; it's just that Augustine situates his concept within a Christian worldview, and Dawkins his within a materialist one.

Grimma, I'd say more existential than cerebral. People don't ask 'Why am I here?' because they want an intellectually satisfying answer, they do it because they want a sense of significance / connection / dare I say, truth.

I don't think Dawkins would hate you for saying that the selfish gene equates to original sin but I do suspect he'd say you were talking nonsense.

Why's that?

"I don't think Dawkins would hate you for saying that the selfish gene equates to original sin but I do suspect he'd say you were talking nonsense."

I couldn't agree more.

Dawkins absolutely was NOT giving genes a selfish motive. That would be silly.

What do you mean, Notfluffy? Explain more...

Well put it this way Holo, you can atone for your sins as much as you like but those selfish genes are going to carry on being selfish. The word 'selfish' is describing the way they appear to act, not saying they have any sort of will.

I think you're falling into the common misunderstanding of the term 'selfish gene'. The 'selfish gene' can give rise to altrustic behaviours.