Why do some people find it hard to believe in God? Part 2

[notfluffyatall]

I don't think we've quite finished yet

Holo - I have just read your last post and I'm sorry to say I really couldn't make head nor tail of it

Could you possibly sum up your point in a bite-sized sentence or two?

x-post - that would be your second to last post I'm referring to now..!

Because they are based on a false premise.

According to your posts, Holo, it's only possible to truly understand your religion through the medium of the bible if you have special knowledge, extra information etc.

Intercession is therefore necessary. Intercession in the form of Special People. Like yourself, or a priest or similar. Those gifted with discernment?

I would go back to the question - why are all humans not equally capable of believing, or to use your word, trusting a god? We aren't, not at all. I do not have that capability and never have. I'm more than capable of reading the special book, though, and have done. I've even read bits of it in ancient Greek. I don't recognise any of what you are saying.

Dawkins was raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and I would say has a good understanding of what it means to be religious in the way it is experienced by most people. You would agree your experience is outside the norm?

Oh dear Bobbin! Sorry!

Right - trust is essntial for healthy life. Child psychology, educational theory, all sorts of other branches of life are based on this. That's why, from a Christian POV, trust in God matters.

(have been lurking...hope you don't mind if I put my oar in at this late stage)

Holofurnesseshead - I'm not convinced by the 'trust' thing.

If we as parents want our children to love and trust us we don't play games with them as to whether we actually exist.

Whenever I ask someone with faith why god doesn't make himself known explicitly - with burning bushes, or skywriting or what have you, they say well, that would take the free-will element out of belief, and that that is all important. This suggests the important question is about belief, not just trust.

I know lots of people, some of them I trust, some not so much. It doesn't mean I don't think they are real. Iyswim?

Ooooh, now you're asking, CrunchyFrog....

Is my experience unusual? Well, yes and no. I've been lucky to have the opportunity to go back to university a second time and thrash out all these Bible-related questions as an adult - not many people get to do that, for sure.

But the reason I did it was because I was asking the questions I hear Christian friends ask all the time - the Bible is big and complex, and needs careful thought. And, as I've said, often gets abused by being used as the means of propping up prejudice, hatred etc. So it was an itch that I wanted to scratch.

From a church POV, my experience is v. much the norm, if such a thing exists in the multicultural UK. I grew up C of E and am v. glad still to be C of E. I worship in a nice little village church with no loony fringe to speak of (they're down the road) (No, only kidding!)

As for 'intercessory' people - I think, tbh, I'd say it comes down to 'no man is an island.' To live in any way we need intercessors of many kinds. My GP is a medical intercessor, the woman behind the counter in the corner shop is a retail intercessor. To many, Dawkin is an intercessor of a scientific and religious type. We live in community, and we all have gifts to bring to our communities. Religion is no different in that sense than anything else.

So that's me...but your questions, why are all humans not equally capable of believing? Well that's a good one. Hmm....Christians might well disagree on this, so I'm just speaking for myself here....but I'd say that most people I know who have come to Christian faith as adults have done so because of Christians. It's not that they've had some great 'lightbulb moment', it's more that they've been around Christians for a bit, seen what the Christian way is about, and got drawn into it. It's the lived experience of Christianity that makes the truth of Christianity visible in the world, I think. Does that make sense to you?

So it's not that some are more 'capable of belief' than others, maybe it's that, because Christianity is a relationship of trust, it has to be experienced to be truly known - and the experience of befriending and knowing Christians is probably a lot of the time what makes trust in God possible. Those are my tentative thoughts....what do you think?

Welcome to the thread, Himalaya!

I think, again, these are just my thoughts, many Christians may disagree, but...

I'd venture that the way God reveals himself is, primarily, through people. Taking the idea that huimanity is made in the 'image of God', we can say that if we want to see what God is like, the best thing we have to go on in hte material universe is the human being. Jesus, I'd say, is the ultimacy of this - 'Behold the Man' as the ancient phrase goes. and because I believe that Jesus is fuly man and fully God, he reveals God much more fully than even the best human beoing could ever do. So if we look for proofs for God's existence in other places, maybe we're looking in the wrong place - maybe we need to start with what it means to be human?

It's certainly not my experience. And I'm surrounded by nominal Christians, living as I do in a very religious society.

If anything, it reaffirms my conviction.

Sorry CrunchyFrog, what's not your experience? Lost the thread of your thinking there...and what reaffirms your conviction?

Holofernes - I think crunchyfrog answered your question to me for me - "why are the Taiwanese shaman's and the dear Archbishop's (Gawd bless 'im) thoughts equally unsubstantiated?" = "Because they are based on a false premise."

I might be more specific, and say they are both convinced of the existence of supernatural beings, which cannot be proven to exist. It is fine by me whatever they believe, but I cannot see that one set of beliefs is more likely to be true than the other.

On another note, I've just been reading an interesting but rather scary article in the Financial Times about Atheism in America and am now feeling very glad that I'm British/European. Though I think if you are living in a large city on the east or west coast of the USA the situation would not be so extreme (most of my American friends are urban types and also non-believers).

I was particularly interested in the bit about how Christian Americans are more comfortable with people of other religions, even Muslims who are often seen as 'the enemy', than they are with atheists. I suppose in the same way that Holofernes said that she feels there is some truth in all religions (but it is most fully revealed in Jesus), having the common denominator of a belief in some kind of divinity makes people of other religions, no matter how different, seem less alien than someone who rejects the very foundation of your beliefs.

I think it is probably an unbridgeable gap - that leap of faith thing again.

I shall read that article tomorrow sometime, Exex! Thanks for linking to it. Pleeeeease note that the distortion or abuse of religion is not an argument against the validity of religion! Anything close to the human heart is in danger of abuse or distortion (as we see on the MN relationship boards all too sadly often).

Goodnight all - hope you enjoy the snow, if you have any!

"the experience of befriending and knowing Christians is probably a lot of the time what makes trust in God possible" - but only if you think he exists in the first place. I have met plenty of perfectly nice Christians (and some unpleasantly self-righteous ones), but that hasn't made me believe in God or want to become a Christian.

In fact there are a large number of evangelical Christians in my extended family, most of whom are lovely, but I think they would probably be lovely people whether or not they were Christians - I respond to the person not the belief, and I don't see them as some kind of representation of the divine. The fact that they have a particular set of beliefs is largely due to family and cultural influence.

Hi - I was the OP on the first thread and just popped back to see that it is full and you're all 200+ messages into another thread. Blimey.

exexpat That article about Atheism in the USA is shocking. Awful, actually. I agree that it makes me glad to live in the UK.

I've always had a relaxed 'live and let live' attitude towards religion, and have family and friends of many faiths and none. I don't judge them for it! Most of the time, I don't even talk about it.

I have spent a lot of time wondering whether the C of E faith I grew up with was something I wanted to continue with. For a long time it wasn't. Now it is.

But all that was a very private journey for me and I am always a bit surprised when feel passionately about others' beliefs or lack of.

HolofernesesHead - I know it's a bit of an old chestnut, but re your point about Christianity manifesting itself best through people, how do you account for the world's good and great who aren't Christians?

Even just run-of-the-mill people like my MIL - she has clocked up thousands of hours of charity work and is one of most gentle, kind, genuinely humble, and generally saintly people I know - but she's an atheist.

Hello OP! Have you had time to read through the threads, and has it helped you with your deliberations?

".....and all of this is one of the long list of reasons why I think that whichever God Dawkins wants us to be de-deluded about, it is not the Judeo-Christian one!"

Er, I think the Judeo-Christian god concept is the one most likely to be top of the list, really. Do you seriously think he's talking about all gods except this one?

Hello OP, bet you didn't think you'd spark all this debate off, did you? It's probably all way off the point for you, but it makes quite interesting reading. And I am glad that we can all discuss it in a civilised way.

So it's not that some are more 'capable of belief' than others, maybe it's that, because Christianity is a relationship of trust, it has to be experienced to be truly known - and the experience of befriending and knowing Christians is probably a lot of the time what makes trust in God possible. Those are my tentative thoughts....what do you think?

I suspect what you observe there is simple human behaviour - fitting in with the herd. (It doesn't depend on there actually being a God there to trust in.) I grew up in a Christian family - doubtless that contributed in a very large part to me starting out as a believer. As an adult, I continued to associate mainly with Christians but also others who challenged my beliefs and helped my brain get out of its theistic rut. And I also came across some Christians - very ardent, evangelical types - who unwittingly helped this process.

Bobbin, yes I have been reading, but the thread has grown so much since I last posted that it has been slow going. I actually started at the end and read backwards. It has been really interesting, particularly later on, when discussion has been more civilised and constructive.

exexpat, no I didn't! No thread I've started has gone beyond about 60-70 post before now. But I don't start that many.

Hi, Mos, bet you didn't expect to spawn this (friendly) beast of a multi-thread!

Catching up ...from Niminy:

As I understand it, from my husband who has a degree in natural sciences and a Phd in philosophy of science, most lab scientists have very little idea of the philosophical underpinnings of what they do, and even less of the debates around them.

This is true. I have 2 science degrees and never formally learned anything about the philosophy of science. The vital underpinnings are implicitly there in the practices of science but not really discussed. My DH (who reads/ watches all sorts of philosophical and scientific material) got himself a set of courses on various subjects for xmas. One was on the philosophy of science. His comment was essentially that he could see why they don't really bother teaching it in science courses; not that there was anything wrong with it ('good', not bad or bonkers ) but that a scientist would want to spend the time learning and doing the actual science.

Its a good thing that there are people who do though; and I rather wish I'd had a couple of lectures somewhere along the way - perhaps not just the philosophy of science but also anti-science.

Holfernesseshead -

"'I'd venture that the way God reveals himself is, primarily, through people."

It just seems such a hit and miss way of communicating for an all-seeing all-knowing creator who created countless galaxies etc..., put together the elements etc... I mean humans are forever communicating, trying to convince each other of things, being leaders and followers etc... He surely would have known the message would get a bit lost in translation and in the general noise? (not to mention the millions of people in China,India, Australia and the Americas etc.. who would have to wait a few hundred years to even hear the message).

Why not deliver self printing and translating bibles to the whole world, or multiple Jesuses in different continents, or just make his presence as obvious as gravity? Or speak out of burning bushes... Or any number of convincing ways to make his existence clear?

... I mean turning the OPs question around why would god make it so easy not to believe in him - particularly once people came to understand the natural basis of thunder, earthquakes, disease, evolution etc... and stopped seeing them as signs if divine purpose?

What is God?
What is belief?
What does it matter?

We are all individuals.

This may be for another thread (part 3?) but what is wrong with "scientism". It sounds like a bad thing, but it seems to mean something like - thinking that there are laws of nature that apply everywhere, and the best way to understand stuff is through evidence and reasoning. Seems fair enough to me.

What is God?
What is belief?
What does it matter?

We are all individuals.

Well yes. each person has their own idea of what God is or isn't. That'd be fine if everyone understood that God is a product of their mind (with nature and nurture inputs) and behaved accordingly. But believers think it does matter - that there actually is one definitive God. If there was such an entity and it was a Judeo-Chistian 'personal' God, then it would matter. Refutation of this in turn matters because of the excessive and not always benign influence religions have on the whole of society.

Himalaya - well, it probably depends exactly how you define 'scientism'. The definition you give is unobjectionable; other definitions appear to be designed by the anti-science camp and are certainly questionable.

In the context of some of these discussions I suspect Dennet had a point: '"when someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'".