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.

Actually strictly speaking it's agnosticism that is the absence of belief (it means without knowledge). To be an atheist is to assert your belief that there is no god. To be an agnostic is to say you don't know what there is.

Yeah, I think both terms have drifted a bit in their meaning which is confusing. To claim god certainly can NOT exist would be irrational anyway so I'm not sure who would be in that camp.

PrettyCandles, I see your link confirms the demonstration that prayer can not heal people or perform any kind of miracle. I know atheists were not in the least surprised, but you'd think it would deeply upset a few religious people.

As for 'making people feel better' of course that works for prayer (for believers) and for sympathy in general. No surprise there and no one would claim prayer was unique in that.

Drifted from where?

unquietdad, i am not religious, have no belief in god, spirits or otherwise.

it is one thing to be an atheist and be sure in the fact that there is no god. it is another thing to try to argue against anyone with beliefs, insinuating that they are devoid of rational thought where god is concerned.

why do you think that it is so important to convice people otherwise? i personally think that faith is a wonderful thing. it has been suggested that it can lengthen the expected lifetime of terminally ill patients and speed up recovery time in others. it gives people someone to turn to in their darkest hour. it allows people to feel like they are doing something in times when there is nothing that can be done.

i have a problem in understanding how people can believe because my brain is wired up in a scientific and philosophical way which i do not find compatible with religion.

i do think that many people look to religion and find a strong sense of morals, a want to reach out to others and build a community. that i cannot see as a bad thing at all.

what do you think about 'the death of god' and it's impact on our society? do you not think that some people need god in order to feel like there is some point to life? where do you think those people will be without god?

ta!

The thing that I find quite irritating is that people who are militantly atheist have this way of belittling people with religious beliefs as if they are morons, and that it comes down to a matter of intelligence. Greater minds than yours have struggled to solve the mystery!

The constant use of comparisons to "god" such as the Loch Ness monster, pink unicorns, spaghetti monster etc, imaginary friend are pretty annoying and childish, not to mention kind of offensive, but we'll leave that to one side for the moment.

Personally, I don't have any experience of "faith", I'm not a Christian or even religious, I do not pray etc. I am an intelligent, well read, Oxbridge graduate. I certainly don't believe in the god described by many on these threads just because it seems a bit simplistic and emotional and not truly "spiritual". But I've always felt however that there is a mystery and a higher power that is beyond our ken. For example, at the heart of the more evolved religions there seems to be a golden thread which contains the same essential truth - most mystical, inner branches of these religions although they have developed separately seem to follow similar processes of spiritual development and it is as if they have all arrived at the same conclusion despite their differing backgrounds. A bit like the way that different scientists can come to the same conclusion using different methods.

Everything I believe in that regard is in keeping with all scientific advances from evolution to particle physics and I believe that as we evolve we will learn more about the way things work and everything will fall into place. I do believe that Islam got it right when saying that one of the fundamentals is that whatever god is, it is beyond the comprehension of our tiny minds!

I view those occupying a militantly atheist position the same way I see those US fundamental Christians - both at the extreme ends of the spectrum of "reality", both of them trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer.

great post
it is offensive and i don't know how some of the ladies on here manage to stay so composed!

Iorek, atheism can mean disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Most of us now seem to use atheism to mean the absence of belief. Not a negative "I know for a fact god can't exist'

Now that, according to the dictionary is agnosticism, but that term is often taken by people to mean "I can't make up my mind what I think" so I don't use it as people get the wrong idea and try to explain it to me.

I should add that I'm the child of lapsed catholics and went to a C of E school but I've never been a Christian because essentially I just can't accept the bit about Christ (literally) rising from the dead which is fairly central (!)

I can accept it as a symbol (self sacrifice) but not literally.

So glad you're really an agnostic too, onager. I can't help feeling though that if it really were simply an absence of belief (rather than a belief in an absence if you like), then you wouldn't feel quite so strongly about those who believe in something else.

We are militant in that when we see someone say 'of course there is a god, everyone knows that' we point out why we do not believe there is.
As has been said just a few posts back we must oppose organised religion because it intrudes on our lives. If religious people kept it to themselves and stopped trying to impose it on us we could give it a rest.

Anyone who finds the comparisons to the Loch Ness monster, pink unicorns, spaghetti monster etc, imaginary friend etc offensive could be accused themselves of being offensive.

Consider a moment someone who genuinely thinks there is a loch ness monster or fairies. They see you saying "don't compare god to that because that is insulting". Which surely means that you think believers in SOME things are loons and don't want PROPER believers to be put in the same category.

We mention these things because we know that many DO think that it would be ridiculous to think fairies and monsters exist and we try to make them see that this is what all religion looks like to us. Why should a line be drawn between them and who gets to decide?

You seem like a person with very strong beliefs to me, onager.

The difference between "believing in" fairies or the Loch Ness Monster is that people may believe in the existence of those things, but they do not put their faith and trust in them, or live their lives according to what they believe they want.

I could say that I believe in the existence of Yetis, but that is very different to what I mean by belief in God, or belief in the scientific method.

It is stupid and insulting to compare someone's deeply held religious convictions with belief that the Loch Ness Monster exists, because you are talking about two very different things under the name of "belief". It is also insulting to compare them with "belief" in a fake religion which was made up for the sole purpose of ridiculing religion.

Onagar, this is the bit that supports my assertion:

"The US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) reported that a survey of issues of the Journal of Family Practice spanning 10 years found that 83% of studies on religiosity found a positive effect on physical health. Another study on 12 years of issues of two major psychiatric journals found that for the studies that measured religiosity, 92% showed a benefit for mental health, 4% were neutral, and 4% showed harm. Religiosity was measured by participation in religious ceremony, social support, prayer, and belief in a higher being.

An analysis of 43 studies on people with advanced cancer noted that those who reported spiritual well-being were able to cope more effectively with terminal illnesses and find meaning in their experience. Major themes of spiritual well-being included: self awareness, coping with stress, connectedness with others, faith, empowerment, confidence, and the ability to live with meaning and hope."

I make no claims regarding intercessory prayer. I don't claim that prayer can cause miracles. I merely claim that faith and prayer can have a positive effect on peoples' lives.

Fairies are part of the pagan religion. Can you dismiss their deeply held beliefs so easily just because they don't have a reserved seat in the house of lords?

PrettyCandles, yeah I saw that. People who think they have someone/something who cares for them (and who might have the power to cure them) will feel better. Often depression/despair in illness is dangerous in itself.

That's why the prayer experiment didn't work since they have to know they are being prayed for/loved etc

It says nothing about the power of prayer, but only about the power of positive thinking which we know has good effects.

It can go the other way too. A crisis of faith can be devastating. I expect there are figures for priests etc who have broken down, but I wouldn't know where to find them.

So who exactly is dismissing Pagans then?

"Consider a moment someone who genuinely thinks there is a loch ness monster or fairies. They see you saying "don't compare god to that because that is insulting". Which surely means that you think believers in SOME things are loons and don't want PROPER believers to be put in the same category."

I'm sorry but you're just wrong. It doesn't mean I think believers in some things are loons whereas believers in other things are not. It means YOU or those using those comparisons think people who believe in god are loons, and YOU or those making the comparisons think people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster are loons. It is a category that YOU have invented. "Loons who believe in things that aren't true."

If belief in fairies is part of someone's belief system, then no I would not dismiss that. But when you or UQD talk about something being as sensible as believing in fairies, I don't think a coherent pagan belief system is what you mean to imply, is it?

Particularly when you nearly always lump fairies together with the Loch Ness Monster, Spaghetti Monster et al - neither of those are "believed in" in the sense of a belief structure, not that I have ever heard of anyway.

If I met someone (on here or in RL) who believed in any of those in a genuine way which formed part of their fundamental wordl-view, then I would not insult them for having beliefs sifferent fron my own.

There IS no difference between believing in fairies, monstors or gods and it's a bit late in the day to deny that religious people DO get upset at that and say they don't want their religion compared to such nonsense.

AMIS I'm sure that you are tactful and kind, but even your last sentence is qualified. You would judge 'if it was a part of their fundamental world view' and I notice you say you wouldn't insult them, but you don't say if privately you would think they were being ridiculous or not.

Remember I am tactful too in the uusal way of things, but in a debate I must say what I mean.

onagar, UQD etc. You see, the thing is, that it is ONLY YOUR OPINION that "there is no difference between believing in fairies, monstors or gods".

What gets people wound up is that you categorically refuse to accept that another opinion has any validity and that yours MUST be right.

As there is no current way of proving who is right, both sets of opinions have validity (and please don't belittle this by adding in spaghetti monsters again, you don't like beng patronised, neither do any believers - try living up to the "Do as you would be done by" maxim)

I don't think that it is ridiculous to believe in fairies. What I'm trying to distinguish between is people who genuinely believe in fairies, and the sort of twee "wouldn't it be nice, let's all pretend" which some people do about lots of things.

I think it is insulting when you compare genuine belief with things which are agreed by all concerned to be a work of fiction, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster - that was invented purely as an example of a made-up deity to prove a point. No-one actually believes in it. When you compare God with the FSM, you are grouping together faith with pretense, and that gives an impression that you do not believe we are sincere.

That's mildly insulting to me, but far more insulting to people of faith who have gone to horrendous deaths rather than recant.

It's not a fair comparison to put belief in God in the same category with belief in the Loch Ness or Spaghetti Monster. There is no church which has grown up around either of these things afaik, nor a related holy book written by their prophets. Where did the Bible come from? Would it have survived all these centuries if it was just a load of rubbish? Is there another book that can claim still to be in publication, and which originated at least 6000 years ago?
For example, Judaism, Islam and Christianity share certain common historical elements. I don't know what proportion of humanity believes in one of these faiths (or indeed any other faith) but I would be surprised if believers in 'a God' were not in the majority. Can so many people worldwide really just be stupid and irrational?
Interesting article here

In particular (I quote): 'In other words, to begin to know God, you must suspend rational thinking. You believe ? not because it makes sense to do so ? but simply because you choose to believe.

Thus, if your friend is honestly religious, he believes in God because he chooses to believe in God, and he admits from the outset that reason has nothing to do with it. Against such faith, all the arguments in the world mean nothing, so don't waste your time.'

The article also points out that there are not generally large amounts of people who spend time arguing about the existence of the Spaghetti Monster or the Easter Bunny.

thumbwitch you say that it's only my opinion that "there is no difference between believing in fairies, monstors or gods".

So in YOUR opinion there IS is a difference between PROPER beliefs and SILLY ones. Thank you for confirming that as it's the point of what I'm saying.

AMIS, YOU can have the seat in the house of lords as far as I'm concerned. You are the best christian on here for discussing things with and I could trust you not to make religion compulsary

As I said in the normal way of things if someone shows me their snaps of ghosts, sea monsters or a bit of toast with mary's face on I don't laugh. I nod as though interested.

Lots of people will laugh at the monsters, but demand respect for the toast because that's part of a 'proper' belief. I take exception to the idea of a 'proper' belief since there is no more evidence for one or another.

We don't expect christians to suddenly not believe in god. It would be nice though if they could see that one unsubstantiated belief is as real as another to us.

As you say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented purely as an example of a made-up deity to prove a point. If someone genuinely believed in it then you'd be expected to show the same deference to it as to any god.

You could end up meeting someone one day who had convinced themself that it really was real. If bowing your head to the Flying Spaghetti Monster to avoid offending that person would feel silly to you then you know how I felt in school when I was obliged to pray to one of the christian gods.

MrsSeanBean, I see that you distinguish between 'proper' beliefs and 'silly' ones too. Apparently on the grounds that it's true and the others are not.

I think my point is made.

Oh and btw the bible is not a book nor the only one from that time. It's a selection of books from those that did. The actual selection has changed (more than once If I recall correctly)

that is dreadful logic, onagar. I didn't offer anything in my last post as to what my opinion was, you have extrapolated in a completely erroneous manner.