Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Question for the religiously inclined

239 replies

cestlavie · 13/02/2009 13:53

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.

OP posts:
Dilettante · 25/02/2009 16:55

Onager, your argument basically amounts to this: ?all cats have four legs, my dog has four legs. Therefore my dog is a cat?.

onagar · 25/02/2009 16:57

ok thumbwitch so you are now agreeing with me that there is no difference between believing in fairies, monstors or gods? or what are you saying?

AMumInScotland · 25/02/2009 16:58

Well, believe it or not I would bow my head to the FSM if I was in the company of someone who believed in it, because I believe that all religious faith is an expression of belief in the same God. Even if the religion is made up, the faith of the believers is still an expression of the same faith that I experience. That's why I don't have any problem with the issue of "So why don't you also believe in Zeus?" which comes up on here from time to time. I believe in God because of experience, I follow the teachings of Christianity rather than eg Buddhism for reasons which are largely cultural. If my culture had been big on the FSM, I would doubtless be a Pastafarian.

Dilettante · 25/02/2009 17:00

Sorry, onagar, not onager

onagar · 25/02/2009 17:01

Dilettante, nope. I'm saying that you can't say that anything which is yours is right and anything that is someone elses is wrong.

You know that until recent times christians would have all 'known' that islam and hinduism were made up heathen rubbish.

AMumInScotland · 25/02/2009 17:01

he did used to be onager, I thought?

thumbwitch · 25/02/2009 17:02

no onagar I am not. You have fallen into the same error again.

onagar · 25/02/2009 17:03

AMIS I'm sure you would and would keep a straight face. I'm going to hang on to my mental image of your sides shaking though if you don't mind

onagar · 25/02/2009 17:05

thumbwitch, well that's why I put on the end "or what are you saying?" to invite you to expand on it since now I have no idea what you intended to say.

Have to go for a bit, but will be back later.

AMumInScotland · 25/02/2009 17:06

Well, I'd have to very politely and tactfully enquire about how they had come to choose that religion...

Dilettante · 25/02/2009 17:22

No onagar that is a fallacy about "until recent times". There have always been more "enlightened" people within Christianity (and presumably the other religions) that have sought common ground with other faiths. Mainly the mystics. For example, did you know that Francis of Assisi was thought to have been exposed to and influenced by Islamic mysticism in his youth? Thought not.

Also, it is quite patently YOU that is saying your opinion is right and "anything that is someone elses is wrong." Surely you can at least see that? No one else on this thread is saying that at all.

MrsSeanBean · 25/02/2009 17:39

Onager, I have been feeling very tired today so my apologies, but I'm not following you very well and/or seem to have missed your point. I was not aware that I had labelled some beliefs silly and others not, I was just stating an widely held position.

thumbwitch · 25/02/2009 17:43

what I was saying, onagar, is (as Dilettante sadi) that YOU are the one assuming that YOUR opinion is the only right way of thinking about it.

My own opinion neither validates nor invalidates your opinion, I was saying that you should accept that your opinion is ONLY your opinion and not fact, and try to be a little more respectful of other people's opinions when you discuss this subject with them.

And your logic was erroneous, was my other point.

UnquietDad · 25/02/2009 20:03

I have been busy most of the day and am amused to come back on and see the usual cases for exceptionalism and special pleading. Nothing changes.

I've found that Christians and atheists mostly seem to agree that Scientology, which some people take very seriously indeed and are devoted to, is basically a weirdo cult made up by a nutjob, with horse-manure for tenets, and followed by a bunch of wackos with more money than sense.

The problem ensues when you try and get religious people to explain how we know this. And then explain how it's different from their religion.

Dilettante · 25/02/2009 20:22

$cientology was set up purely to make money. Christianity was not, quite the opposite.

So really not that difficult at all to explain the difference, is it?

UnquietDad · 25/02/2009 22:32

It appears to be difficult, however, to "explain" the difference without adopting a holier-than-thou tone. Funny, that.

Again - exceptionalism rules.

My point is this - nobody has ever been able to give sufficient evidence as to why this "faith" they feel should be for their particular "god" and not some other nebulous, arguably made-up being.

IorekByrnison · 25/02/2009 23:03

Unquiet Dad, I've seen AMIS answer your much repeated "point" more times than I can count on here, including today at 16:58. What part of it are you not getting?

Dilettante · 25/02/2009 23:05

er...are you talking about me with the holier-than-thou attitude, UnquietDad, or just in general? I'm not a Christian, nor am I "religious", but it just seems obvious to me that there is a huge difference.

Could you explain what you mean by exceptionalism in this instance?

I think plenty of coherent answers have been given to your last point - esp. the one about culture having a lot to do with it. Most people who are religious (though not all) follow the tradition they are used to because of family or local culture.

I mean the way I see it, whatever religion you are, the god is the same, it is just human interpretation that differs. But that is why I am not religious myself because I think humans have got it wrong and are coming at it from the wrong POV. For eg I don't believe that the historical Jesus wanted to set up a religion and be worshipped, but that's what we do isn't it? We tend to forget the message and set up a religion...it seems to happen every time a "teacher" appears who attempts to emancipate and further the spiritual development of mankind.

UnquietDad · 25/02/2009 23:20

Iorek, there is answering a point and there is foggily waffling around it. Again, this idea that I don't "get" something because the explanation is inadequate - it really tries my patience.

My position is actually that I don't have to explain or justify anything - I no more have to defend being an atheist than I have to defend not believing Santa Claus is real. I still attempt to do so, out of intellectual honesty and courtesy. However, anyone making an extraordinary claim - that flying saucers exist, that the Earth is flat, that gods exist - should be able to provide a vestige of evidence for their claim, above and beyond "well, it just is because I feel it and have experienced it."

That's all.

I'm not deluding myself that I am ever going to get anywhere with this, though.

UnquietDad · 25/02/2009 23:22

(Reading AMum's post above, I do actually get the "cultural reasons" thing and that's soemthing which I wish more Christians would admit to. Problem is, they generally don't. It's usually all the one true god this and the divine saviour that.)

IorekByrnison · 25/02/2009 23:29

I'm confused. Do you get it or don't you? Or are you saying that the beliefs which AMIS has expressed here are somehow exceptional and not representative of religious belief?

AMumInScotland · 26/02/2009 08:41

I think (from previous discussions rather than this one...) that UQD has a problem with one "linking" part of my beliefs.

  1. Experience the existence of "something"
  2. Conclude that it is a deity or other supernatural being
  3. Decide which deity it is, and what pattern of response is expected

I get the impression he accepts that 1 happens, though he thinks it's misfiring neurones in the brain of the person experiencing it.

I think he accepts my version of 3, but has problems with others who don't admit to cultural reasons being a strong factor. I'm not saying I'm right and those who think there is only one proper way are wrong, the same cultural factors also make me very "tolerant" (sorry can't think of the right word, don't mean anyone else is intolerant)

The problem for him is 2 - why do we decide that it is God at all?

And that is non-rational (I don't like "irrational" as a word for this, because it is not neutral, but I'll accept that it's non-rational).

And that's the bit he can't get his head round, and probably never will. If I was an atheist reading this thread I would probably not be convinced by it either.

What puzzles me is why he tries, so consistently, to convince believers that they are wrong. He could just leave us to it. The idea that by not answering, anyone undecided would be convinced that we were winning an intellectual argument and be convinced of the existence of God, is laughable.

IorekByrnison · 26/02/2009 09:40

Yes, I see, AMIS. But from my reading of and conversations with people who have religious belief, the kind of culturally aware faith which you have described so eloquently many times on here is by no means unique to you. And it makes a nonsense of the "if you believe in your God you are atheistic about all the others and yours is no better than the spaghetti monster etc" argument. Yet it comes back again and again and again...

I have no faith myself and have no particular interest in defending religious belief, but I can't bear the sloppiness of making arguments against a very specific kind of literal thinking which is not at all common to all religious people, and then labelling that literal thinking "religion". It's just not very accurate.

UnquietDad · 26/02/2009 09:55

I'm wondering how much use any of this is any more to the OP - I'm sure she has upped and gone long ago...

'Non-rational' will do... I don't have a problem with that.

AMum's three-point list above is interesting, because I don't see any logical causal link between the three parts at all. Each one of them requires a huge leap of assumption.

But as I said above, cultural reasons - believing in a particular god because it is the one you have grown up with, read about, been "told" about - play a huge part. I've grown up in Western Christian culture and yet I still challenge these assumptions. I wonder why that is?

It's not so much trying to convince believers they are "wrong" - I'm never in a month of Sunday schools going to do that. It's more trying to correct some of the assumptions made about why people don't believe.

There is a also a rhetorical tendency in these arguments to attempt to represent (re-present) both sides as having gone through an equally valid, logical, rational, intellectual process, and this is also something I like to challenge when I can. People don't like it. But that's part of the point. And I think it's vital in a time when atheists are being portrayed in the media as "shrill"and "militant" when they are nothing of the sort.

(Would you call someone shrill and militant for repeatedly denying the existence of an obviously or very probably made-up thing? If not, then the only argument is whether god falls into the category of "obviously or very probably made-up.")

IorekByrnison · 26/02/2009 10:18

On this: "I've grown up in Western Christian culture and yet I still challenge these assumptions. I wonder why that is?"

If you grew up in Britain some time in the past 40 years you grew up in a pretty secular culture. I was born into a Catholic family but was an atheist by the time I left school (and it was a convent). My move to atheism was every bit as much a result of cultural factors as the fact that my family was Catholic in the first place. It certainly was not some sort of heroic rejection of all surrounding cultural values, but rather a replacement of one set with another. The liberal atheist views that I came to sit far more comfortably with the wider culture than the Catholicism I grew up with. Challenging assumptions is not the sole preserve of the atheist.