Religion, why do you believe?

[Kulindahr]

I'm in no way caricaturing here. It isn't my fault that believers have given inconsistent definitions. Every believer will usually at this point always come out with an objection that the other side is misrepresenting their beliefs.

I'm still waiting for a workable definition of faith. What evidence pointed to not only some nebulous speculation that someone's running the show but that it's your specific one of Christianity? Pure a priori deduction like the ontological argument isn't going to cut it in terms of evidence as its opposite can also be conceived.

You would expect that and yet all we have is hearsay that such a thing occurred. If you're convinced either by textual witness alone and the number of adherents as evidence, then anything can and will convince you.

The elegance and beauty of the universe are sufficient to convince many that there is a Creator.

When one looks for communication from one, there is far more than hearsay -- documents are not hearsay, when recorded by witnesses.

 

[AsianDream]

You can see that on these threads from both pro-religious and anti-religious folk alike.

Zealots often need the enthusiasm and determination of their cause to sustain their own beliefs.

For others, their convictions work, on some level for them, so they make the sanctimonious and mistaken assumption that it must be the same for everyone else.

The one aspect that I don't think non-believers give sufficient weight to is the poetic or metaphysical "truth" of religious belief.

Concepts like the function of divine grace or like forgiveness or the choice between love and hate do reflect a body of thought and belief that may have more to it than meets the scientific eye.

I'm not saying that makes religion true or even necessary, but it does warrant inquiry and not simply keeping the door slammed against everything religion has to offer.

There is still the basic flaw with most organised religions that otherwise quite rational people do seem to have the idea that they are absolutely right and know the ultimate truth.

On the other hand - as you say - some religious concepts are undeniably good - even though they have no scientific basis.

The basic idea of "treat others as you would like them to treat you" is the basis of most human (and religious) ideas of morality - but is not supported by any purely reductionist view of reality.

So - even as an Athiest - I do accept your argument that there is an element of poetic or metaphysical "truth" to religious belief.

The problem with any particular current version of religion - is whether it is actually true or not - in short is there any "hard" evidence to support any one religion as the "one true faith".

In my view there is no such proof for any current major religion - but I would be interested to know if you disagree?

 

[Nishin]

The elegance and beauty of the universe are sufficient to convince many that there is a Creator.

Beauty and elegance being human and subjective values... such statement just doesn't make any sense...

That to me is not the issue. As a gay man, as a ethnic minority in the US, and as an ordinary human being, I feel compelled to ask- who or what is the source of those things that I value, want, and need such as "peace", "justice", and "love"? Whatever that ultimate source is, I call "God". To me, it simply makes sense to identify those things that I value in an ultimate source of "goodness".

The basic idea of "treat others as you would like them to treat you" is the basis of most human (and religious) ideas of morality - but is not supported by any purely reductionist view of reality.

These things, morals, ethics, justice, love can all be found in Humanism ; actually there are researches that would tend to indicate they exist because they are useful to man and to survival of our species...

 

[Nishin]

^ http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/d357e3b1e61e9e99?pli=1

 

[AsianDream]

These things, morals, ethics, justice, love can all be found in Humanism ; actually there are researches that would tend to indicate they exist because they are useful to man and to survival of our species...

I'd agree that in fact most Atheists actually believe in Humanism. The ideas of ethics, justice and love have been useful to the survival of our species.

Given the extraordinary growth of knowledge and exponential explosion in our population in the last hundred years the ideas of ethics, justice and love will become absolutely critical to the survival of our civilisation.

It is probably true that our survual as a species is not in doubt - no matter what changes occur in the Worlds environment human beings will survive.

However the rapid reduction from a 9 billion population mid century to a more sustainable number towards the end of this century could be a quite horrific and terrible process for those involved.

 

[Spensed]

The problem with any particular current version of religion - is whether it is actually true or not - in short is there any "hard" evidence to support any one religion as the "one true faith".

In my view there is no such proof for any current major religion - but I would be interested to know if you disagree?

No, I agree with you and, for the most part, endorse your attitude in this area.

 

[poolerboy]

The elegance and beauty of the universe are sufficient to convince many that there is a Creator.

I didn't ask you to provide me with things that could convince believers. I asked you what the evidence was. You've also yet to provide a definition of faith.

When one looks for communication from one, there is far more than hearsay -- documents are not hearsay, when recorded by witnesses.

And which documents are these? The Gospels? They are pseudepigraphs, two of which derive most of their accounts from Mark and as such cannot serve as more testimony. The Pauline Corpus also has questionable epistles as far as authorship is concerned. But even if I were to grant you that they are written by those who claim to have seen the events, to say that simply because someone said they saw or experienced X doesn't meet the level of adequate evidence. Imagine if we just took eye witness testimony at face value in a court of law without interacting with them and cross examining them. Or if we just accepted some notarized letter they submit. That you or some other believers are satisfied with "someone said so and I believe them" that's fine and good luck with that, but know that this is far from establishing a solid case.

 

[AsianDream]

I didn't ask you to provide me with things that could convince believers. I asked you what the evidence was. You've also yet to provide a definition of faith.

One definition of "Faith" is believing in something - despite the fact that there is no proof or evidence to support it.

In this case I'd discount as evidence any arguments based on the "elegance of the Universe".

The design of living creatures (including Humans) is very far from elegant and shows no evidence whatsoever for any sort of design.

I guess one plus for the religious is that they genuinely believe they're going to live forever. The sad fact is that there is nothing to prove this and no evidence for it.

Personally - I'd sign up for any religion that had any proof in order to be immortal - just as I'd spend my life savings on "Snake Oil" that could do the same.

Unfortunately neither "product" has any proof to make me believe the claims made for it.

This is not to doubt the sincerity of those that do "have Faith" - while I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a delusion - I guess a "serious misapprehension" would be a fairly accurate description.

 

[bankside]

One of the most ridiculous questions I have ever been asked by a person was who created the big bang. Self respecting people of science have no problem answering with I don't know. It is the most noble of answers. When you do not know something you simply do not know something.

You can have faith in a great many of things outside of the context of religion. I have faith that a human can use his rational, logical mind to attempt to understand the universe.

Bill Maher said something like "Just because we don't know doesn't mean we have to make it up!"

 

[bankside]

Well I think Maher would agree with your point...

 

[bankside]

The elegance and beauty of the universe are sufficient to convince many that there is a Creator.

When one looks for communication from one, there is far more than hearsay -- documents are not hearsay, when recorded by witnesses.

I was rereading some posts in this thread and it occurred to me just what a low bar you have set to be convinced of something.

 

[Spensed]

^ Not quite as simple as that.

If your fictional event came up with, or even conveyed, some time enduring principles, doesn't it become real to that extent?

A poem, or any work of art, can be a fiction and still reflect, or embody, reality.

And so on and so forth.....

It's partly why this argument never stops.

 

[bankside]

^ Not quite as simple as that.

If your fictional event came up with, or even conveyed, some time enduring principles, doesn't it become real to that extent?

A poem, or any work of art, can be a fiction and still reflect, or embody, reality.

And so on and so forth.....

It's partly why this argument never stops.

The only reason this particular argument never stops is because it gets side-tracked in semantics. If someone said, "I've read a wonderful novel and the author has a beautiful imagination that imparted wisdom and reading it has changed my outlook. What a spectacular, important piece of fiction! I hope it wins an award!" this is entirely different than someone saying "This book is really what happened and it represents reliable knowledge coming from divine commandment, so govern yourselves accordingly" then we are not in the same ballpark.

It is only by deliberately tripping up and deliberately failing to distinguish between those two spectacularly different scenarios that this becomes an issue. Call the Bible and other religious texts important, meaningful works of fiction, works of art, political manifestos or what have you and we'll have a breakthrough. There is nothing to be gained by muddying these waters.

 

[poolerboy]

One definition of "Faith" is believing in something - despite the fact that there is no proof or evidence to support it.

That's one defintion I would agree with and yet I'm being told that I have it completely wrong. I'm still waiting on his definition.

 

[Spensed]

The only reason this particular argument never stops is because it gets side-tracked in semantics. If someone said, "I've read a wonderful novel and the author has a beautiful imagination that imparted wisdom and reading it has changed my outlook. What a spectacular, important piece of fiction! I hope it wins an award!" this is entirely different than someone saying "This book is really what happened and it represents reliable knowledge coming from divine commandment, so govern yourselves accordingly" then we are not in the same ballpark.

It is only by deliberately tripping up and deliberately failing to distinguish between those two spectacularly different scenarios that this becomes an issue. Call the Bible and other religious texts important, meaningful works of fiction, works of art, political manifestos or what have you and we'll have a breakthrough. There is nothing to be gained by muddying these waters.

You're right but only to some extent. The debate doesn't go away even one can reach a consensus about whether the Bible is fiction or history.

Many Christians don't believe the Bible needs to be literally or factually true. But they do believe it contains some principles that they consider are divinely inspired. In contrast, non-religious folk don't see the need to think in those terms.

So the divide is as much as matter of faith and choice (and whether or not my choice should be coerced on you) as it about whether the Bible is factually or symbolically true. And I don't see that going away any time soon.

My mindset is to at least appreciate the truths that are there, whether they're divinely inspired or not.

 

[bankside]

Many Christians don't believe the Bible needs to be literally or factually true. But they do believe it contains some principles that they consider are divinely inspired. In contrast, non-religious folk don't see the need to think in those terms.

i appreciate that, but those christians would hold that god needs to literally and factually exist in order to provide the inspiration for the "bible-as-a-work-of-art&wisdom."

i wonder how they sustain that opinion!

 

[bankside]

Faith is believing in what we cannot see, ie; Blessed are those who believe, but cannot see. This is all very simply to the point. Faith is a beautiful Gift of God, and yes, Faith can be lost.

If faith were a gift of God, it would seem to be perverse to promise salvation to those who had been given the gift. This image turns God into both the owner and the bouncer at a questionable night club - he lets you in, but only if you have the VIP pass he gave you earlier... Faith might make sense more as an "accomplishment" than as a "gift."

 

[ramses04]

Trees!! 10 points to anyone who knows where that one comes from

 

[Spensed]

i appreciate that, but those christians would hold that god needs to literally and factually exist in order to provide the inspiration for the "bible-as-a-work-of-art&wisdom."

i wonder how they sustain that opinion!

Faith and/or choice

To say the obvious, just because one believes in something doesn't make that thing real or true.

But the belief itself can be real or true for the believer.

 

[Kyanimal]

Science is a "gift" from God, in that through it's application, we can understand the workings behind His miracles. As our knowledge grows, we can become better stewards of our planet. It is our God given duty to Learn as much as we can!

Religion is not from God. It is a creation of Man.

Faith is from God. It gives us the power to face another day!

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz