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.

So it's really a foregone conclusion - you go in wanting to believe, you will.

Message withdrawn

No, UQD, things can happen that change your world-view. For me it was the whole business of having our first child. It crystallised when, the first time I was alone with the baby, I realised that I could not put my head down and go to sleep until I gave thanks for the miracle that had grown within me. That's when I knew that I believed. For the first time, then, prayer felt real and meaningful. And it still does.

bloss - I trust my wife and the other people that I trust because, at the moment, there is no evidence to do otherwise. Were evidence to be presented I would assess it. It's incredibly patronising to suggest to me that I am an atheist because I am "not ready" to enter into a dialogue with something for which there is no evidence. If you were in your dark room, why would you not start talking to Zeus, Astarte, Thor, the Great Green Arklesizure, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Spaghetti Monster, the Thetans (Scientology's made-up things) or Flom, the god I have just made up in my head?

This is one of the things guaranteed to get my blood simmering - the other being the suggestion (also made on here a while back) that I am an atheist because I am too much of an ignoramus to understand all the wonderful "sophistication" of faith.

prettycandles - I don't buy all this schlock about prayer. I'm sorry. However lovely and sentimental it may sound, good things happen to both good and bad people and bad things happen to both good and bad people, and there is no correlation between how much or how little these things happen and how much or how little you speak to "god". If you wish to argue for one, fine - please do so. With reference to published data in peer-reviewed studies in reputable journals, please.

Still fighting the battle for world domination of atheism and the spaghetti monster then Unquietdad?

Message withdrawn

God loves you anyway UQD

Message withdrawn

I don't think you're stupid or unsophisticated to not believe in God, and I don't believe that I am in any way better or more spiritual or more "ready" than you for believing in God. There are very clever and sophisticated people on both sides of this divide, and also very dim and unsophisticated ones, neither side has the monopoly on either.

I've already told you why I give the entity the name "God" rather than "Zeus" - it is cultural. I've already explained why I believe it to be "God" by whatever name.

You say you trust because you have no evidence to do otherwise. Well, same here! I have no evidence to suggest that something which I experience and relate to does not exist. I don't have proof that it either does or does not exist, and I therefore accept what my experience tells me. I have corroboration for my beliefs in that many other people believe in something very similar, and have done it seems since human beings evolved to the point where they became self-aware. But no proof.

I guess the problem for me in relating to your posts is words like "irrational" - it has such negative connotations. If we could agree on a term to describe religious faith which was not a negative one, then I'd probably not have such an issue, but the word "irrational" is not a neutral term.

Well there's god and we come to it by whatever name. Humanism, morality, ethics, they're not really spiritual are they? It's getting in touch with the divine, seeing there's more to life than stuff and things. What's to prove?

That's about the size of it

God = Good

I want to pick up on the "do you trust your wife" thing. I've seen this comparison between faith in god and faith in people come up before and it seems to be at least partly a failure of language. It would probably be better to speak of having trust in people.

You can have faith or trust IN someone based on your knowledge of them and how they acted in the past. Faith that god exists is not comparable since you don't have a history of previous experience to base it on. Someone may try to argue that they have had lots of experience of god, but that was after they had decided that he existed based on faith.

"You say it's irrational to start talking to someone you are not sure is there. But if you were in a darkened room and wanted to know if someone was out there, you would start talking just in case"

Again not a clearly thought through comparison. Before you call out in a darkened room you already know certain things. That other people exist, that other people are often inside rooms. That if there were another person there they would most likely hear your voice being equipped with ears to hear it.

Have you ever known someone in a darkened room call out for an Aardvark just in case talking Aardvarks exist? Of course not. That would be just silly since there would be no reason to suppose an Aardvark would be there or would be willing and able to hold a conversation etc. And Aardvark's at least exist.

Bloss it's ok, but you would be letting yourself down if you didn't do the hard intellectual work that is necessary to understand these points.

You know what they say - Aardvark never hurt anyone.

Message withdrawn

I'm not "bewilderingly angry". I'm upset, maybe, that intelligent people in the 21st century still need superstition to make them happy. But if it makes them happy, so what? some people people might say. A kind of spiritual prozac.

I don't imagine it really affects me - unless and until they start asking me to believe it, trying to get my children to believe it, and allowing it to enter the decision-making processes of government and judiciary. And whaddya know - they do all of the above.

Most of the time I don't give it a second thought. But sometimes I see things which are the equivalent of poking me with a sharp stick, and it's hard not to say "ow".

Message withdrawn

Scientific (empirical) evidence also requires a "leap of faith"

Usually things are not proven through scientific method, so much as the most likely conclusion.

I love this thread & I don't understand half of it!How long can it go on for? Is it a thread record - does that make it a spool?

Message withdrawn

By Cammelia on Tue 24-Feb-09 14:59:32
God loves you anyway UQD

But UQD, I'm not arguing for prayer making a difference to whether or not good things happen, nor to whom they happen. I'm talking about it being a personal need. I didn't pray for a healthy baby when I was pg, but when I held my child I felt the need to give thanks. I thanked my dh, as well as my god.

Unlike, I think, many posters on this thread, I see belief in god as an internal, personal position. I don't consider myself to be a party to the knowledge of what god wants me to do, or of whether he loves me.

BTW, at some point when I have more time, I might be able to dig out the references you require: there have been empirical, scientifically controlled and peer-reviewed studies which showed that prayer did have an effect on recovery from ill-health. But that probably shows as much about the effects of personal positions and of being a member of a community as about the existence of an involved deity. Though if deity is as effective as placebo, and placebo is more effective than medication, then I'm quite happy to trust in god. Who, BTW, helps those who help themselves.

bloss - absolutely not. I trust people because, so far, the evidence suggests they are trustworthy AND there is none to suggest they are not. It is not a case of "believing unless"... it's a case of balancing the evidence.

mrs sb and cammelia - well... I'm sure the spaghetti monster and all his imaginary friends (and mine) are looking out for you...

prettycandles - I'd be VERY interested to see those...