Question for the religiously inclined

[cestlavie]

Well, apologies if this has been done before (a million times) but it is Friday afternoon and I raise it having had a rather futile discussion with the local vicar.

Background to this, incidentally, is that DD2 is going to be christened (like DD1) at DW's request - DW being a non-practising CoE type person who feels that being christened is the "right" thing to do for a little one. Being an atheist, I really couldn't give two hoots but it is important to DW and she's happy to undertake the obligations associated with the christening. Anyway, having had the vicar round (again) and having had (another) futile discussion with him as to the nature of belief I'm curious whether anyone else out there is better able to articulate things than him. In short, my question is:

What is the evidence for God, or rather why do you believe in God?

My own position is, rather simply, that (a) I do not believe there is any empirical evidence for God more compelling than any other explanation (b) I do not believe that because millions of people believe in God that this is the case and (c) specifically regarding Christianity, I do not believe the Bible to be a complete and accurate reflection of the events it describes.

I'm genuinely curious therefore as to how people end up believing in God, or is it simply, as St Augustine said "a leap of faith"? I would also add that despite being an atheist, I'm certainly not of the Dawkins camp and have no wish to belittle people who do believe - indeed I'd love to believe myself in many ways, which is part of the reason I find the subject so fascinating.

Can I join in? I do enjoy thinking about UD's questions . . . .

I'm with Amber on this one. I know when God has been active in my life and answering prayer. And there are loads of anecdotal stories that healings happen when people pray, not just one piece of anecdotal evidence, but unless you want to believe, then you can always write them off. I know, however, that I'd rather live in a world in which everything doesn't have to be empirically proven, but which has space for life beyond the provable.

(An educational comparison. I used to teach in the days before the national curriculum. My teaching was designed around what my children knew already, what they wanted to know next, what I was keen to teach them, and what we could discover along the way together. Then the government of the day said that schools had to be accountable, and that our teaching had to be measurable. The result is that the exams which measure the success of the learning, empirically, define what should be taught. Many of the wonderful outcomes I saw as a teacher would not have been possible in ensuring that the students were ready to go through the next set of measurable hoops - there wasn't time to do both. However complex the system of measuring, it is bound by what we either already know or by what we expect to know, and cannot therefore allow us to explore as fully and quickly as we might. That is not to say that I am against all systematic thinking - my kids did well in exams against set criteria - but they also did bloody well in life, as intelligent, creative and spontaneous beings who could relate to one another and to what they read on a whole range of levels)

"yes, but why this god and not another?" - well, this one responds to prayer, and chanllenges me and my opinions, so that I am involved in a dialogue, not a lone existence. Oh, and this one says that I cannot earn my way to eternal life - He is giving it for free - which means, for me it is attainable. I'd never live up to the standards the other religions set their followers.

In what way does your god "respond" to prayer? How do you know it is "your" god speaking?

I find it frustrating having these conversations, because it is very difficult get anyone who has a faith to step outside it and picture how it must seem to someone whose world-view is not defined by that. The only way to come close is to ask how you view Scientologists, or something of that sort.

Science does not claim to be able to know or measure everything. But as soon as you start allowing that which cannot be demonstrated by evidence, you are on a slippery slope.

The educational comparison above is simply not valid - the children may not have been "tested" conventionally (and I'm far from being an advocate of tests) but they demonstrated, through their achievements, less measurable evidence (but still evidence) that their education had been worthwhile.

UnquietDad, reading your posts I can see you are frustrated, but then you are asking Christians why they believe and then saying "rubbish" at the answers?! Can't imagine how frustrating it is to be on the other end of your post?! What are you hoping for from this post?

PFTA, UQD does sound frustrated sometimes with us, but I guess he hopes for an interesting conversation - I certainly value bouncing ideas off him, even though we don't agree.

UQD - I am happy to respond to your questions, if you want me to, but not if it is just frustrating, for you. I do often step outside my faith and look at life from other angles (My dh is a convinced atheist, so I am very aware of how my world view appears to him!) However, on this thread, when we discuss spiritual or philosophical ideas it would be silly of me to stand outside myself to represent what I don't believe!

No idea, really. But if I leave these ideas unchallenged then it looks as if the believers have come up with something "unanswerable", which would be intellectually dishonest of me.

You send very grown-up! Very sensible

sound SOUND SOUND!!

Have only read OP but for me, it is not so much about having a proposition to which I think either (a) I believe or (b) I do not believe, but it is about finding language that expresses the way I feel about life, the universe and everything, and the connectedness of life, and the spiritual aspect of being human. I have those feelings/understandings and the language of religion/spirituality expresses those feelings/understandings in the best way available for me. Essentially, it is not about picking facts to believe, it is about picking language that best describes and helps me to understanding the way I feel about the world.

You do have a point. I am a christian, I am very active in my church, but also have huge issues with it, the protrayal of religion, and other religions - why are some OK and others not? Science is not the answer to everything - look at the verruca thread we had on here. Nothing except crazy alternative medicine banana skin worked - but that's not "proven" medicine... so many issues...

Morning paper - that reply was for UDad. Although you also have a valid point!

Lol UQD - between you not leaving the believers unchallenged, and the believers not leaving the atheists unchallenged, it's no surprise some of these debates go on as long as they do....

I think TBH you could leave some of the believers' posts unchallenged without anyone "neutral" thinking you'd been unable to answer the point. When they're clearly thinking in terms of their experiences "proving" the existence of God to them individually, but in a way which no-one would take as scientific proof, I don't think anyone would conclude it was "unanswerable".

Morningpaper has articulated precisely my feelings on this subject. Except that for various reasons I don't quite identify myself as a Christian or a believer. But if I did, that is how I would do it.

UQD, you write, "I find it frustrating having these conversations, because it is very difficult get anyone who has a faith to step outside it and picture how it must seem to someone whose world-view is not defined by that."

No hope of getting me to be able to do that, on account of me having an ASD. Most people with an ASD are highly logical and very suspicious of anything that can't be scientifically examined. Not all, but most. A large part of me wishes to say "Don't be silly, there isn't an invisible God!" but I can't. What I have experienced in my life leads me to the inevitable conclusion that there is. I cannot prove it to others, no. But a relationship with God is there for the taking, if people wish it to be. Why not open up a dialogue with Him. See what happens. Keep an open mind about events that follow.

People always say this. Why would I open up a "dialogue" with something that has not demonstrated any evidence to me that it exists? I may as well be talking to someone's imaginary friend.

Message withdrawn

That's all very true, Pruners. I do like to get the superstitious to admit that their arguments are irrational, though!

Message withdrawn

Morningpaper - you sound like several Quakers of my aquaintance.

I am someone who was an atheist and became a Christian so maybe I am allowed to claim to understand both world views.
I used to think there was no need to postulate the existence of a god and feel a bit sorry for those deluded individuals who needed to.
Nonetheless I was always drawn back to investigating it and I constantly had a feeling that there must be more point to life. On op's point a) there is indeed no empirical evidence either for or against the existence of god. It is as rational to believe as not to believe. The only truly rational position is to say that we don't know...but it isn't very satisfying.
I have read a lot of science, philosophy, archaeology trying to find an answer in those concrete terms but it can't be solved that way.
What happened to me was that I decided to read the Bible seriously rather than argue from a position of ignorance and very surprisingly to me and anyone who knew me I changed my mind. I find the person of Jesus as described in the Gospels very convincing and I decided to trust him basically.
I have enough awareness still of how a non-Christian thinks to know that that sounds crazy but there it is.( I do remember wondering why they were always banging on about Jesus and here I am doing the same).

Praise God Amber....

A little ditty and It goes like this....

Through many dangers, toils and snares, have I already come, twas grace that brought me safe thus far, and grace will lead me homw.

Well, I used to be a churchgoer and have read the Bible, and I became an atheist. So I don't argue from a position of ignorance either.

But does one have to have read all the works of L Ron Hubbard to dismiss Scientology as a pile of horse-manure? I think not.

My belief is very different, possibly because I'm a cynical cow. I don't believe in God because he answers my prayers, because I belive God runs the world his way, and not always in the way I want it to go. I belive in God because I look at things like the human body, language, and DNA and I cannot fathon the idea that these things evolved without some guiding hand, everything just works too damned perfectly! Even things like the way the earth works, the way the envirnoment is in balence with itself, it all points to a creator, regardless of what you call him. My point of view is, that since this creator (God or whatever you call him) clearly exists, it makes sense for me to accept his existence. I seek comfort in the fact that there is a bigger plan, and the world has a purpose bigger than me, and everything positive I do contributes to this world. When things don't go the way I want them to (illness/death etc) I know there is someone running the show who understands why these things happen, and their purpose, even if I never will. Hope this is helpful.

UQD "I do like to get the superstitious to admit that their arguments are irrational, though!"

But why is it irrational to believe in something which you experience? I agree it would be irrational to believe on the basis of things which you do not experience. It would be irrational for you to believe in something because I experience it, no matter how firm my beliefs, when I can't provide impartial evidence to support my experience.

But that doesn't make it irrational for me to believe in what I experience.

That's not quite using "irrational" in the terms in which I understand it. To say that something exists simply because you have "experienced" it, without objective evidence, is not wholly rational.

Do people who have seen the Loch Ness Monster or who claim to have been abducted by aliens make these things "real"? Or would one be more likely to say that their testimonies were shaky without further evidence?

It's called 'faith'. That means it is a personal choice which requires only the amount of evidence or proof that the individual needs to confirm their faith.