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.

Science evolves over time in response to things which are of relevance to science - new evidence, new hypotheses.

Religion evolves over time in response to things which are of relevance to religion - sometimes that is scientific theories like evolution or the fact that the earth goes round the sun, sometimes developments in psychology, sometimes general opinion such as inclusiveness and tolerance being a good thing.

What's the problem?

It wasn't my intention to set up a false dichotomy. But really, given that science is, broadly, the study of the Universe and how everything in it works, is there anything which is not "relevant to science"?

Time yet again for my favourite diagram

Well, if you want to suggest that science should change when religion changes, feel free to go ahead

I think this is the heart of the issue. If you are only interested in the mechanisms and processes by which the universe works then science is certainly enough. In a mechanistic account, our experience of morality, spirituality, art and love can all be very convincingly explained as by-products of the process by which our genes perpetuate themselves.

If on the other hand you feel the need to ask why any of it exists at all, or have a conviction that morality, spirituality, art and love might be of central importance to our being, science is not much help.

Shall I tell you a problem I have with the above post, and it is probably just me,but
I don't know what spirituality means, Morality,Art, Love yes - I might not be able to define them too well but I think I understand what people mean when they talk about it, but spirituality not a clue.

Well that's probably one of the reasons why you are happiest as an atheist, do you not think?

"Spirituality" - the ultimate woo term. It can mean whatever people want it to mean, from a belief in any of the major religions to a conviction that waving a crystal at a tumour will make it go away, to generally feeling nice when you see the sun come up.

If you find the term spirituality problematic, then just scrub it from my post and just consider morality, art and love. However, by the same logic you could equally call love "the ultimate woo term" as it is just as diverse in its meaning.

UnquietDad, could you explain what you would consider as "proof"? And then, what you would consider that "proof" as proof of?

Genuinely interested. Thanks.

I'm puzzled as to why I am being asked about "proof". I don't think I have requested this. I always go out of my way in these discussions to make it clear: you can't prove a non-ness, so I can't prove there is no god.

However, what I do think is that it would be nice for any extraordinary claim to be backed up with evidence. If you tell me there is an invisible dragon in my back garden, I won't necessarily disbelieve you, but I do think it reasonable to ask you on what grounds you believe this. If the grounds are not convincing, I think I have every right not to believe in invisible dragons in my back garden.

It's not that there is no proof for gods. It's that there is no evidence. Cultural imprints (e.g. beautiful art, music and architecture) and the pervasiveness of religious procedures are not evidence - they merely show that there is a belief.

If you mean "what would you consider to be evidence?" then that's perhaps a more interesting question. I suppose I would turn the question round and ask, if somebody made an extraordinary claim, what would you consider evidence for this?

I suppose the difference between me and more credulous people is that I consider it reasonable to ask for evidence to support extraordinary claims.

Others do not, and are happy to accept the claims without evidence. I think this is dangerous, but obviously some people don't agree.

This is a fundamental difference which, I suspect, will never be reconciled.

Unquiet Dad I don't think anyone has disputed your right to not believe. It is rather the nature of religious belief that is under question.

Indeed, and as per my original post, my question was as to how people come to believe - personally, I think it's very easy to understand why people don't which is why I have less interest in it.

UQD - I've said it many times, but here you go again - "There is no evidence". If you do not wish to believe in God because of that lack of evidence, then that is fine and I can totally understand and respect your point of view.

Those of us who believe do so in spite of the lack of evidence, because of things which are compelling to us individually but do not count as evidence. That does not, in my view, make us credulous. We do not believe in other people's odd claims on their say-so without any evidence. We believe on the basis of our own experience and senses and internal conviction.

I'm not sure what your point is in continually commenting that we should provide evidence if we expect to be taken seriously.

Or indeed what your point is in debating this at all. We believe what we believe. You don't. That's it, end of debate, surely?

I'm not claiming that anyone is disputing my right not to believe. I'm explaining why I think it is reasonable to ask for evidence.

AMum, the problem is that when you start talking about "other people's odd claims", all religious superstitions can just as easily be slotted into that category. If you claim they can't, that's just exceptionalism.

As I have said above, I think going on subjective feeling is dangerous.

UnquietDad, I'm not saying you have asked for proof (sighs). You have however made a big deal out of it not being enough for believers to say that there is no proof there is no God, and that the onus is on them to prove that there is.

So, out of interest, I'm just curious as to what, in your mind, this might be.

I accept that you are an atheist and since I'm not religious myself I'm hardly trying to "turn" you.

I'm genuinely interested.

Oh I'm including my own beliefs in "odd claims" - I don't expect anyone else to believe just because I say I experience something.

And I think all religious experience is subjective. How could it not be? If there was hard evidence for beliefs, they wouldn't be in the category of religion any more, they'd be another branch of science.

OK, evidence then. Can you give me some examples of what you would accept as evidence.

I'm not sure whether I find it depressing or hilarious that I'm seen as some kind of unreasonable despot for making a perfectly reasonable request - i.e. asking for extraordinary claims to be supported by at least some evidence.

People who claim the Loch Ness Monster exists provide photographic evidence and film.

People who claim aliens have visited us provide crop circles, blurred photos and juddery hand-held home video.

People who claim NASA faked the Moon landings point to the shadows being "wrong" and the flag not looking right.

Of course, all of these are hardly watertight cases and can be pretty easily dismissed with counter-evidence, but the point is that they are there. These conspiracy theorists and supernaturalists, no matter how nutty, don't just expect the rest of us to take their word for it. They know they have to back it up with something.

Dilettante - I refer you to the last part of my answer of 14:44:05.

Right, Onagar. I?m back.

?I'm still waiting on the offered rational dismissal of $cientology and "brownies etc". I have hopes of applying it to all these 'obviously false' gods out there and thinning the herd until we are just left with all the real gods that actually exist.?

I think I?m losing the will to live in this debate with you Onagar. You ain't never gonna get what you want because you'll never "hear" it, no matter how many times it is said to you. You don't believe in any spiritual truths, so even my rationalisations will be meaningless to you.

To quote you earlier - ?Everyone has a line beyond which... "well obviously not THEM. Of course THAT doesn't count. They are not PROPER..."

Do they though? I don?t see it on this thread. From what I can see, most, if not all, of the responses you got about that line of yours were to do with seeing common ground and essential truths to greater or lesser degrees in other religions, not about discounting them.

Reading through my earlier posts I see I already gave you a rational response as to the issue of belief in fairies..reread it if you can bothered.

So that leaves $cientology. I myself have rationally dismissed $cientology because of written evidence which suggests that Ron L Hubbard, a SF writer, made it up out of thin air. This evidence takes the form of his handwritten notes with what appears to be a plot for an SF novel written on it, including notes in the margin commenting that it would be ?very Space Opera?. However instead of it being an outline for a novel, it turns out to be the basis for his invented ?religion? that he had earlier spoken of as being the best way to get a shed load of money. Add to this the eye witness accounts of people who have escaped from $cientology who say that they were brainwashed and drained of their cash, isolated and mentally abused and threatened.

Frankly if you want more information then look up some of the eye witness survivor accounts online, or the testimonies of those who have lost children or family members to the cult. It is not a religion; it doesn?t deal with any god or gods, nor does it deal with spiritual wellbeing. It is quite clearly a crock, and a sinister, dangerous and cynical one at that.

I think that having that knowledge enables me rationally to decide that $cientology is not a genuine spiritual movement.

Re: the discuission betwen Dilettante and onagar above.

I think applying rational dismissal to each and every superstition on a case-by-case basis may not be that helpful - it implies that they all exist until shown otherwise, i.e. it puts the onus on the non-believer. It should be the other way round.

UnquietDad what's with the persecution complex? I asked you a perfectly reasonable question based on stuff you'd said before, I didn't make you out to be an unreasonable despot, nor did I comment on whether your request was reasonable or not. I don't get why you're being so defensive.

You've given examples of what might generally be considered as evidence for an extraordinary claim - photos etc. So am I to assume that you would expect belief in god to be backed up with similar evidence - photos, video film etc?

The problem is that the claim is not the same as those type of claims and so the "evidence" will not be the same either.

In answer to your point about turning the question around, for me, in the absence of concrete and irrefutable evidence, I would have to experience it myself to believe it. In fact that holds true in any case and particularly in relation to god. It wouldn't centre on the type of physical evidence you've mentioned. Personally I don't go along with the leap of faith argument. I think it is either real and tangible, able to experienced by those who learn how to experience it, or it isn't.

UQ, I quite agree with you about the discussion between Onagar and myself. I don't think it is helpful at all.