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?

I guess belief in science is ultimately a belief that everything can be worked out and everyone can come to the same conclusion, a belief that in life there is One Answer which is knowable, discoverable, provable. That we are not in a universe ultimately beyond our comprehension and that something is still there which can give us an answer given that God has been "disproved".

The faith in science as there is a search for cures and genetic tweaks that will extend life is the belief that death can be overcome, much like religion.

"Same with what Augustine said about sin - he said that we think we are acting in our best interests, but we're still trapped in that being compelled to sin without knowing why or even wanting to do - it is who we are as humans at the most basic, 'nuclear' if you like, level. "

I have no idea how you can compare this ^^ to my post describing the selfish gene. Can you please break the comparison down a bit, I'm just not seeing it. I'll have to take your word for what Augustine said about sin.

Continuum, that's faith in logical positivism, not 'science'! I'm afraid that the atrocities of the twentieth century pretty much blew that Victorian optimism out of the water... (Did I read you right? Do you think that God has been 'disproved'? Blimey! Tell me more...)

"Firstfruits = literally the first fruits of the harvest, the first apple of autumn . Metaphorically within the Bible (both OT & NT), it means the thing that gives you hope of what is to come - so CHriistians ought to be the people who give the world hope of what is to come (I know we're rubbish at it - I am sorry)."

No need to apologise, I'd rather y'all kept it to yourselves in the main anyway

Er, no. The metaphor of "the lamb" comes in two main forms in the Bible. One is as "The Lamb of God" eg Jesus. The other is that we are all lambs/sheep and God is our shepherd.

Therefore "The lion shall lie down with the lamb" or, rather, more accurately as "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb" is obviously to be taken in the context of us all being the lambs and so should be read as Jesus ushering in a time when we shall be able to abide with our enemies without fear.

"But is anyone a "real" scientist or are they merely "that scientist I like to believe in because they come to conclusions I agree with"?"

Anyone who dismisses scientific theories (and I mean theories in the scientific sense) because they don't fit in with their worldview are fools.

Scientists don't have 'faith' in other scientists. Hence the need for peer review and reproducible results. Trust in the methodology (when properly applied) isn't anything like 'faith'.

I find it hard as it is just so unlikely

Yes, notfluff... and a 'real scientist' is someone who will ditch their own conclusions if they are falsified.

"People have a belief in a scientific lack of bias and methodology because in practise people are just people."

Speak for yourself.

What I struggle with is if there is a god why do we automatically assume he is loving, paternal god? Might he not be a sadistic loony who enjoys watching us all mess up and hurt one another?

"Yes, notfluff... and a 'real scientist' is someone who will ditch their own conclusions if they are falsified."

Absolutely Grimma, and they enjoy it too

Notfluffy - okay - so, the gene thing - genes do what they do because they are what they are. No deliberate disobedience, will etc. Just a determination to survive.

Augustine - people do what they do because we are what we are. No deliberate disobedience, will etc (which was exactly what his opponent, Pelagius, was saying - he was saying that people have freedom to be eithre good or bad and can choose which way to go). In Augustine, it is a determination to go your own way (which I interpret as a self-centred way of life).

So Christian life is about receiving the grace of God (call it woo if you like, I am hardened to such offensive language about my faith!) and allowing God to cut you free from the web of sin / self that you are caught in. It's about 'dying to yourself' and 'living to God.' Forgiving others is a little microcosm of that - you have to 'die' to your own rights, your offences, attacks etc, even if you know that you are 100% in the right and 100% abused, and 'live' - because forgiving others brings a freedom from them that holding on to bitterness could never give. It's not easy! Christianity really isn't easy. As I said earlier, it's a martyr religion, and sometimes the martyrdom is literally death, more now than ever in history - often it's 'taking up your cross daily' (not fluffy at all!) But the Christian hope of resurrection is about saying that through death comes life that is more profound and 'alive' than being caught in the web of sin.

Heresiarch, okay! You obviously know a bit about the Bible - in OT prophecy you have the issues of (1) what it meant in its original context (which is what most OT scholars do), (2) next what it means in the context of the canon (which is the level on which you deal with it - a few OT scholars do this too), (3) then what it means in the world now (which is what dogmatic theologians do). I am veering somewhere between 1 and 3 when I say it's about the restoration of all.

So I wouldn't say 'you're wrong', but I would say that there are quite a few ways of reading the Bible validly.

Whirli, the Christian faith says that if we want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. So that's why I believe that God is love, the source of all love. (Think I missed some posts - what's all this about 'real scientists'?)

Other titles considered for The Selfish Gene: The Immortal Gene. The Co-operative Gene. Dawkins seems a little unhappy at how some people have focussed on the 'Selfish'.
Introduction to the 30th anniversary edition

The reason that this analogy between the selfish gene and original sin doesn't work is because selfishness is described as the property of the gene and original sin is a property of humans. A human is not a gene; it is an organism. Organisms are not selfish because they are not the unit of selection; the unit of selection is the gene. The fact that the gene is the unit of selection is stressed many, many times by Dawkins in the book 'The Selfish Gene' and in his other books.

So a gene, if we conceptualise how evolution really works in terms of motivation (and I mean evolution in the general sense of change in proportions of alleles, not speciation), will attempt to reproduce themselves regardless of whether or not the organism it is part of is harmed or killed by that motivation. The evolutionary saying is that I would gladly drown to save the life of my 4 nephews. That way a gene that I carry has better chances of reproducing in my close relations through my death.

I don't see what this has to do with original sin, which is surely more about the individual's desire to act in their best interests and not out of love for God or wider humanity. It makes no mention of any kind of substance we are made up of which we share with others close to us which has desires of its own and doesn't have our best interests at heart.

It's funny, but when people say "The Bible should be taken in context" what I hear is "I'm going to selectively interpret it in such a way that it agrees with me".

"the gene thing - genes do what they do because they are what they are. No deliberate disobedience, will etc."

"people do what they do because we are what we are. No deliberate disobedience, will etc "

That was a bit disappointing.

I do, however, still think you're understanding the 'selfish' aspect of the tag.

Wow, what a thread! I have spent most of my life not believing in God for many of the reasons that have been stated here (children with cancer, tsunamis, earthquakes, Tory governments , the general sh*t state of the world) but I've also always had some sort of nagging feeling that the actual perfection of our world (eg the colours of tropical fish, plants, fruit you get the picture!) can't all be accidental and that maybe, just maybe, there IS a higher being and that we cannot comprehend all the bollocks of it because at the moment we just don't get the bigger picture. Maybe life as we see it now is like being so close up to a huge oil painting that it just looks like a smudgy mess but as you step further and further back from it, it comes into focus and everything eventually becomes clear. What WE see and choose (yes choose) to experience as tragedy - untimely deaths, mass destruction - may NOT be tragedy at all. How do we know that death is a bad thing? Our human emotions experience it as bad (because we miss the people who die) but IS it?

I am still pretty much on the fence with this. Sometimes I think " ok, you live you die, that's it". Other times, I really sit and think about the world and everything in it and I think "crikey, there MUST be something in this!" In fact, I sometimes think it's harder to NOT believe. I don't believe in some man in the sky with a white beard, I believe it's EVERYTHING- the air we breathe, science, the food we eat, all the stuff of life. I don't buy into the bible and the 10 commandments, I don't believe in a judgemental, fearful God and I don't believe in Heaven and Hell. I see little point in creating life only to punish it when it doesn't behave in a way you want it to.

My level of faith is indeed a bit questionable and I could quite easily argue from either side of the fence but when I'm in the "there must be something" zone, I'm generally a happier person and, whether there is a God or not, surely if your beliefs make you happy then that can only be a good thing.

"I do, however, still think you're understanding the 'selfish' aspect of the tag."

Woops, I meant to say NOT understanding

Well yes Gooskha, if there is a God the first question I will be asking after death is why he invented a parasite that burrowed into the eyes of babies and puppies and in what sense is that a good thing. If there is a God, he has some serious explaining to do.

Gooshka

The colours of tropical fish, plants, fruit etc are not accidental they have evolved that way.

"Our human emotions experience it as bad (because we miss the people who die) but IS it?"

No too great for the kids in Africa dying of starvation. I'll be sure to CHOOSE not to feel sad the next time the charity ad comes on. But yes, the world is perfect and beautiful place.... In suburban UK.

I'm not being obtuse, I just hate all that attributing to higher power stuff. If you're even thinking of attributing anything to a higher power it needs to be it ALL, warts and all.

Lots more posts! :) Hersiarch, we've had lots of conversation on this thread about hermeneutics (reading strategies for the Bible). I am happy to talk about it more if you like, and will happily defend my viewpoints - I've spent lots of time on this so have lots to say! :)

Notfluffy, why disappointing? Really interesting to be talking about all this, I am genuinely enjoying the cut and thrust of robust discussion! :)