To the believers...

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

How does one justify to themselves belief in a supernatural being with literally no hard evidence? This is something I just don't understand. Without the assumption of a god or gods, we are able to explain pretty much everything in the Universe and even those yet-to-be-answered questions are being gradually chipped away at without any need for a deity.

So what makes people believe in a god? Is it fear, conditioning, laziness? Theories of the supernatural were our first attempts at understanding the world (big yellow disc moves across the sky, don't know what it is, maybe a god carries it around up there). You could say they were humankind's first attempt at scientific reasoning. But we've moved on from these archaic theories now and we can explain all these things we couldn't before, yet for some reason, religions live on and people continue to think that some guy lives upstairs and watches over us even though there's no rational way to argue his existence.

Do Christians think Muslims are insane for their differing beliefs? Does anyone still believe in the Greek or Roman gods anymore? Do the religious find Scientology to be just another religion or does anyone else see the the words 'cult' and 'religion' are pretty much interchangable?

Discuss!!

"I was quite specific about referring to 'the teachings of Jesus' as opposed to simply 'Christianity' "

Well, that looks like clutching at straws from where I am sitting.

I don't know how you think you can separate the teachings of Jesus from Christianity.

By the way, I don't know what "atheists pride themselves on" because we are not a club, we don't know each other, and there is no single atheist pride or mode of behaviour.

I don't think I am being less than civil. If you don't agree, feel free to report my posts.

Cote I read your 21:41 post last night and was . Do you really think that you are 100% rational all the time?

Puzi- are you part of the creation Science movement? Someone once signed me up for their newsletters for two years, and they contained pretty much that argument. Pick something that is well adapted to its function, suggest that it is therefore too perfect to have evolved completely missing the point about natural selection.

crescent - You are right. It was actually a shock for me to realize that women in the UK had none of these rights, as late as 1830s

As you can imagine, my female ancestors never had to fight for these rights and I had never imagined that many other women in the world actually had to.

Anyone claiming that progress such as equal rights for women comes from the neighbour-loving influence of Christianity needs to wake up and learn some history.

Dione - Yes, I think so. I have thought about it at some length last night and can't think of any instance, going back as far as I can remember, where I wasn't.

Never believed in God, even as a child. Never bought a lottery ticket, because odds of a major win are essentially zero.

If you would give me examples of where you were irrational, I can tell you if I have ever done any such thing.

Cote, I was a little perplexed by what you meant when requesting an example of 'proof'. My degree is proof enough that I think scientifically, not proof there is a god. I was giving an example of the way I think, I thought that was what you requested. I don't think one small example like the one I have given is enough to base my whole faith on.

Madonna, no I am not a member of a Creation Science. To be honest, I haven't entered into a discussion like this for a long, long time...

puzi - Sorry if I have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that you have proof of God, presumably gleaned through your biochemistry studies.

Your biochemistry degree is not proof that you think scientifically, I'm afraid, but proof that you learned what you were taught well enough to pass exams.

My mum has a medical degree and is the least scientific-minded person I know. She can tell you all you want to know about drug interactions and chemical reactions, but emotions rather than rational calculations determine her actions and she is a fan of "emotional intelligence".

I don't know you well enough to say you don't think scientifically (maybe you do, maybe you don't) but just that your biochemistry degree does not mean you must be thinking scientifically all the time.

What would somebody be like who was thinking scientifically all the time? Would this even be possible?

Fear, laziness and conditioning have nothing to do with why I believe (Christian). I found out that what the Bible says is true as an adult. I would say that I've experienced God's presence, hear him speak to me constantly via the Bible/prayer/people/circumstances/just about anything you can imagine and had countless prayers answered. I'm not saying for a minute that I have the answers to everything or that I don't question things all the time.

A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument - I absolutely KNOW. I can't prove it to you with hard evidence but I know.

I don't think followers of other religions are mad but I think they are following the wrong path. If I didn't I'd be a Muslim/Hindu/whatever too. I believe we should live and let live though and that, rather than pretending we think all religions are right, to me is true tolerance - I also accept that they believe I'm wrong about this and that's fine.

It does annoy me that a lot of the threads I read from atheists on here presume we're all weak and stupid but I guess I have to extend tolerance to those beliefs too.

Of course it is possible.

Thinking scientifically when looking at lab results, but also thinking scientifically when looking at the question of "Is there a God?".

Peach - I don't think believers are all weak and stupid. Some very smart and otherwise rational friends are devoutly religious. I don't think they are weak and stupid. I do think that they have been taught about their religion at an age where they just accepted it all because they weren't capable of questioning it.

I do get what you mean by "live and let live". I don't go around telling friends in RL what I think about their God and religion(s). I do here because that is the point of MN in general and these religion threads in particular.

This isn't an argument for the 'God of the gaps', which I think is completely inadequate. But,Cote, your post makes me want to say something about the limits and inadequacies of science.

Don't get me wrong, I am absolutely not anti-science. I am married to a philosopher of science.

But science is just no good at addressing certain kinds of questions, such as 'why is Bach a musical genius - and how did he write, why did he write such amazing music?' 'Why do beautiful things sometimes make us cry?' 'How can I be good?' 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' 'What is right and what is wrong?'. These are just examples, and there are many more. Science just isn't any good at answering questions like these - when certain proponents of science try to, the answers they give are at best simplistic.

Science is amazing. But it isn't enough.

There are of course the big noticeable irrationalities such as my phobia, falling in love and the fact that I smoke. Then there are middling irrationalities like why did I stay in that job that I hated. And then there are the little ones like why do I buy branded items instead of value ones, why do I sometimes stay up late when I know that it will impact me the following day, why did something that has nothing to do with me and no impact on my life cause me to get angry, why do I really like one person and really dislike another.

I do probably think about the role of genes, nurture and defense mechanisms in our decisions and reactions more than the average person.

Niminy. When you say science isn't enough, enough in what way?

...to love their neighbour as themselves. That we take these values for granted has everything to do with the historical legacy of Christianity, and without that legacy we would not have them, because such values were unknown in the classical world before Christianity.

Nice sentiment but far from true. Altruism was not invented by Jesus. Caring for others is not something that only started in the middle east in 1AD. "Treat others as you would want to be treated" is a principle that is far older than Christianity.

I agree with you that science can't answer everything yet. There are questions we can't answer at the time being, but we answer so much more than before and have no reason to believe that we won't be able to answer those in the future.

re Bach - This is actually a topic I have spent some time researching. I love Bach's music, to the point that it invades my mind if I listen (or play) too much of it and I end up not being able to concentrate on much else or even sleep because melodies are turning around in my head.

However, I don't really like any other classical music. Some Vivaldi is great, but not all. And some of their Baroque contemporaries are OK, but not great.

Why?

I have come to the conclusion that Bach's uniquely mathematical style fits in with the way my mind works. Mozart was obviously a genius, and came up with some great melodies, but his style doesn't "fit" me in the same way.

There are people whose minds fit better with other types of music, and those don't necessarily like Bach. So I don't think you can ask "How did he write such amazing music?" because not everyone will say his music was singularly amazing.

Interestingly, I also feel so strongly about progressive techno & trance, which are also very mathematical and use some of the same permutations that Bach does.

Snorts, indeed. But before Christians, no one had thought to make it the central principle of ethics. Show me the hospitals elsewhere in the ancient world which treated everyone regardless of their sex or status. The things that Christianity did that was revolutionary was a) to say that people should not just care for other people, but that they should love people as themselves, and that should be all other people, for all people are equally loved by God. Those principles were unknown before Christinity.

HeadinHands, enough for example to answer the questions I posed in my post.

If there were no hospitals before 1 AD, that has hardly to do with the wonderful feelings of altruism that Christianity "invented" (you seem to think). More to do with the socioeconomic conditions in which people lived at the time, I would think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any all-encompassing sharing-the-love kind of hospitals and charities during the feudal period of Europe when Christianity was very dominant.

Hi Cote, I wasn't saying I'm offended by the reasonable arguments on the boards or by atheist beliefs but thanks for replying. I just find it hard to swallow when I read OPs like this one, which could be summarised 'it's obvious God doesn't exist so why are you all so stupid?'or when someone posts a genuine question and then others post 'why worry it's all bullshit ha ha' type responses. The equivalent would be me shouting 'you're all damned to hell!' wouldn't it? I can imagine that going down a storm.

Cote, you are wrong there, I'm afraid. The establishment of hospitals was everything to do with Christianity, and the medieval period was distinguished by the spread of hospitals, schools and charities, all of them run by, um, Christians.

Your thoughts about Bach are very interesting. But that is not a scientific answer to the question, not least because mathematics is not the same as science.

To follow up on Peach's post at 10.47 about experience trumping argument, I think that is essentially true as far as having faith goes. I believe because of my experience of God, not because I was convinced by argument. (Although it would be impossible for me to believe in something I couldn't also give reasoned assent to.) It seems to me that experience does pose a problem in these kinds of discussions, because it is impossible to gainsay.

I have direct experience of God, experience that I cannot find a more satisfactory explanation for. You might contend that this is hallucination, or disturbance of the brain, or optical illusion, or wishful thinking. But you cannot know that, because you cannot share my experience. You can interpret my description of it, but you cannot say that it is not what I believe it to have been.

If I say that I have experience of God, there are four possibilities: I am mistaken, or I am mad, or I am lying, or I am telling the truth. You may think the last cannot possibly be the case, but it is just as likely as the others, and you cannot say for certain that it is not the case.

And what are we to say about all the accounts people have left us of their encounters with God? How could we say for certain that they are not telling the truth?

(Btw, Snorbs, I apologise for calling you Snorts - it was the damn autocorrect)

Pedropony...and Yourhand

I am willing to bet you believe in many things for which you have no hard evidence, as you call it. If you take a look at recent cosmology, you will see how very frangible evidence for the materiality of the universe really is. Maybe take a look at The Science Delusion, if you are really interested in thinking through the complexities.

Do you for instance believe in the following - maternal love, true love between partners, the capacity of animals with only small cortices to experience life more-or-less as we do, the apprehension of natural beauty? All are quite hard to explain in materialism.

I see God as the ineffable, the unknowable, even the absent. Why should there be hard evidence for him?

As for the defects of religion - sectarianism and the like - agree, but most are reduplicated in ANY endeavour with mass human involvement, such as communist politics, nationalism, and racial theory. Those ideas in militantly secular mode have been and are used to justify all kinds of terrible acts. Just look at China.

@cote 100% rational?
Never smoked?
Never had unprotected sex?
Never fantasised about spending your life with somone?
Never drank too much?
Never eaten more than you need?

Ah sorry. Was trying to read deeper element to it. What about people who answers those questions either without god, or don't care about the answers anyway?