A question for theists: why do you personally believe in God?

[LAGC]

Is it because of tradition? Because your family has always believed that way as long as you can remember, and you just want to "carry on the flame" for your family and generations to come?

Is it because of prayer? Have you felt a certain way while meditating that makes you feel like God is personally listening to your prayers?

Is it because of the social services that your church provides, that you feel must be inspired by a "higher calling", something greater than man?

Is it because there seem to be forces unexplainable in the world, and the existence of angels and demons (and deities that rule over them) seems to be the only possible explanation?

Or is it something else entirely?

I'm just trying to figure it out, because now that I'm so full of doubt, I find it all so very foreign, like I'm outside of myself looking in...

[tularetom]

1. I'm sort of in the "lack of a better explanation" camp

But I'm also in the "why should god give a flying fuck about what we do" camp.

I believe, in the eyes of god, humans and cockroaches occupy about the same level of concern and interest. God started the ball rolling on the process that eventually evolved into the human race, but I don't think he/she really takes any interest in the affairs of humans, anymore than any other carbon based life form.

Not sure if this is the type of answer you're looking for but there it is.

[Lint Head]

2. For me it's partly tradition and the way I was raised.

I have since read a lot and took a theology course in college. It is a contentious issue in my family because my only living relatives are supposed Christians but hold bigoted and racist views. I just had a major argument with my sister today. She says subtle things that are obviously loaded with racist and bigoted innuendo. Her and her husband are Republicans that think African Americans are less intelligent than Caucasians and he is homophobic. I told her that God created everybody not just white people and that black people are just a smart as white people. I comforted her with something she said to me years ago that she denies but I remember like it was yesterday. I was in the hospital with a Campylobacter infection that almost killed me. It's like Salmonella.
My kidneys could have failed.

I am straight but as an artistic and creative person bigots sometime assume I'm gay. That doesn't bother me. What did bother me for years is that when my sister visited me in the hospital she asked if I had Aids. That demonstrated to me that she was more concerned about me possibly being gay than if I was within two days of dying. This is from a person that professes to be highly Christian and wants to emulate Jesus.

Needless to say I am upset and wish I had never brought it up. I have had enough of putting up with this and had to speak out.

[patrice]

5. I have something similar in my family. I know it's a big deal when it's your blood.

:hug:

[Xipe Totec]

3. Because I read Kurt Gödel, and I think he's on to something

And because Hugh Everet's many world interpretation of Quantum Mechanics allows for the possibility of a universe in which miracles do happen.

[patrice]

6. I think I'm headed in that direction.

I don't have problems with the possibility of powers of powers. I just reject all of the bullshit that has been hung on it (for money) and NOT because co - incidence, or synchronicity, is not possible but that STARTING from that position is a fundamental mistake.

[Xipe Totec]

8. Religion is a whole other topic

And that topic falls squarely on the bullshit column.

I'm with you on that.

[Silent3]

38. Those miracles wouldn't be miracles, however.

Give enough monkeys enough time randomly banging on keyboards and eventually they'll produce Shakespeare. It won't be a miracle when it happens, however, it will be inevitability.

Under the "many worlds" interpretation there's a functioning universe where, just by sheer chance, magic seems to work. There's another one where magic seems to work, but only on Tuesdays. There's a universe that looks like a Disney cartoon -- in fact, countless variants on that theme. No matter how amazing or bleak, joyous or terrible, fanciful or mundane, there's a universe for it.

There are many universes where you reply to this post in a language you didn't even knew you could speak. There's at least one where you hunt me down and kill me in response to this post, or hunt me down to give me ten billion dollars.

But chances are vanishingly small that you'll ever experience even a minor deviation from a universe that "averages out" to behaving in a normal, fairly predictable way. I think we can be fairly strongly certain that very few, if not zero, supposedly miraculous events that any of us experience or talk about are amazing confluences of trillions of trillions of quantum events collapsing in just the right way to, say, cure a disease or drop food from the sky to desperate starving people.

(I am now very much hoping I'm not in a universe where you respond to this point by posting pictures of disturbing things you do with hamsters and duct tape. That universe, however, does exist, you sick bastard!)

[Xipe Totec]

41. I find your lack of faith disturbing

:P

[patrice]

4. Okay, I'll play: It is natural for people to perceive the power of causes & effects. They infer

causes of causes and causes of causes of causes, etc. and these have been personified in gods and then, eventually, a god of the gods, which then became the god in the major monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

Because it's based on something called faith, the whole thing is circular and self-referential, PERFECTLY self justifying, so all of that got turned into a business, creating highly desirable jobs for people who protect other people from the truth about us.

I don't think it is a far fetched idea to speculate about the possibility that there is a some thing that caused all other things and, therefore, has power over all other things. I don't think it is far fetched to hypothesize that this ultimate power, this god if you must, has qualities that are beyond our comprehension, but that we may nonetheless perceive manifested in our cosmos. But I do think it is a far fetched idea to attribute to It all of the personal human qualities that religions have given It, not that there couldn't be/isn't some co - incidence between It and us (as I mentioned earlier how Its unknown powers could manifest themselves in our perception), but, rather, that what we do recognize of It is recognized best, at least partly, through reason and to reject that is not only dangerous, it is a rejection of one of Its most intimate and specific manifestations in us humans.

You'll probably note my use of "at least partly" in the last sentence, which is an allusion to factors other than what is conventionally referred to as reason. I don't mean to imply anything superstitious or magical and I'm not referring to faith either. Maybe what I'm thinking about here is the way that there have been various events in human understanding in which reason was a necessary, but not sufficient, cause of a high order truth that was perceived, i.e. the gestalt of a truth can be greater than the sum of its reasoned parts. Rational empirical reality does have emergent properties and we are a part of that.

Problems arise when others capitalize on those emergent properties and turn them into something that they aren't (pretty and convenient fairy tales usually) including a complete and perfect justification for anything that they want.

[struggle4progress]

7. Because with Isaiah I hope for the impossible:

and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more

I want a day when the hungry and naked are fed and clothed; when we humans do not fall like vicious raptors upon each other and upon the earth, indifferently leaving wailing and desolation in our path; when we cease to justify our greed and our wars and actually choose a just and lasting peace, a peace of life and not a peace of the grave

He will wipe away the tears from all faces

Everyone with any sense knows these to be impossible hopes. But what if one concludes that only by working towards such impossibilities one can be fully and authentically human, not a mere product of the time and the place, but a free person with a really free will? How could anyone work for such things, if too proud to be called a fool? for one must be a fool to hope and work for the impossible. And if one is willing to believe some impossibilities, then which is really less likely -- that humans will set aside their animal cruelty and instinct and begin to care for each other and share with each other -- or that God became entirely human and walked on earth to say "You must love your neighbor as yourself", so was seized by us and murdered, died and then rose from the tomb to say it again? Surely the second is no less unrealistic than the first. For "You must love your neighbor as yourself", is not a teaching that we much like nor much practice: the neighbor is an imperfect creature, like ourselves, so we find excuses -- lest in looking too generously upon our neighbor we might find our own ugly reflection there. "You must love your neighbor as yourself" is the sort of saying that often provokes a violent response if one says it when and where it is most unheard. So there is an existential choice: one chooses to become hard and jaded and indifferent -- or one confronts the terror of the world with impossible hope

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them

[LAGC]

23. It would be nice if there wasn't so much violence in nature, wouldn't it?

If living animals didn't have to prey on one another to survive... if we could all be herbivores and live off of fruits, legumes, and veggies. But meat just tastes so damn good... why do you suppose God made it that way? So much temptation, if it wasn't meant to be?

I'd like to think that man, with the evolved ability to think, has the capacity to overcome this wanton natural tendency to want to war and destroy and kill other life-forms, but millions of years of tradition is hard to overcome...

[struggle4progress]

28. As a first goal, I might be briefly satisfied if we weren't destroying

the planet, if we weren't wasting limited resources on armaments, and if we weren't all so damnably complacent about the poverty of most of the world's population

We're running out of time to work this out

I guess I'll have to postpone for the time being the longer term project of trying to convince the lions not to chew on the gazelles

[Sal316]

9. Because if man is the penultimate of existence....

....then honestly, that would be depressing.

in the words of CS Lewis "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. . ."

[patrice]

10. Religion that equates man with god through faith, puts man as the penultimate of existence and

is, thus, blasphemy.

Science and rational empiricism in general is much more humble than religion says it is. It makes limited statements of probability and claims nothing more than what is revealed within a given context defined by its discipline.

Religion equates itself with the unlimited absolute.

So, which one thinks it is the "penultimate of existence"?

[darkstar3]

11. Why would man be "next to last" in existence?

And why would man being the greatest being existence has to offer (assuming that's what you meant) be so depressing, given all the capacities of man? Also, why would a greater monument of existence necessarily be a god?

edit for clarity.

[patrice]

13. Ooooo, bingo!

I think part of the presumption is that man is so disgusting that if we're the best reality has to offer that's pretty horrible.

Real good plan for getting better, right?, start by presuming you can't.

To that I say, if the history of man's inhumanity to man is evidence of somekind of need for something, wouldn't man's own faculties fill that bill better than, or at least as good as, a god would, because, not only has god been around an awful long time and is supposed to be, by definition, all powerful and yet man is STILL pretty horrible, but also a god is also by definition always and forever beyond man, so man will always and forever lacking, trapped in his non-godness. So wouldn't it be better to focus on a solution to how horrible man is in something that we actually have and CAN use pretty well? Reason. Sure reason is limited and not perfect, but it's better than god, because it's something we have some control over and we already possess it.

[AlecBGreen]

16. the answer to that, according to my understanding of Christianity

is that we must merge our humanity with perfection, i.e. Christ. If we realize that we are part of the perfect, part of God, if we take our place in the Body of Christ, we attain our true status as noble creatures. We are all imperfect, we all fall short of how good we could possibly be. But if we realize that and take refuge in the knowledge that we are part of something better, we can redeem ourselves. There is more to being "saved" than just realization... "faith without works is dead." We must "work out our salvation." But knowing is half the battle ;)

Reason is key, but it isnt sufficient unto itself.

[patrice]

25. I can live with that. One footnote though,

The example set in the life of a man named Yeshua is quite clear; we can be living equations of Christ. However, if we presume that equating with Yeshua is equal to "God", that's a mistake, an error and an essential one at that, one that is the opposite of what we think it is, because the minute that you define God enough to make any kind of absolute statement about It, you have lost It, because you have limited It. Those kinds of equations are also not what I understand faith to be. To me, faith would have to be utterly utterly blind, because anything else would be a knowing of some sort, i.e. not faith. That utter blindness is what I hear in the words "Eli, eli lama sabachthani!"

As you can probably guess, my big problem with Christianity today is how certain of absolutely everything everyone is. To me, that literally kills the very thing I think they think they are talking about.

[LAGC]

24. I think I'd rather like to know the truth, even if it makes us uncomfortable.

Should we one day be able to explain all the mysteries of the universe, wouldn't it be better to know than to remain basked in ignorance just because it makes us feel better not to know?

[trotsky]

32. Lewis' quote is very telling about the mind of a believer.

Afraid.

[BurtWorm]

35. What nonsense that Lewis was capable of.

He had a very simplistic kind of "wisdom" and "logic" system, designed to sound deeper than it actually is.

[dmallind]

37. Which is actually IMO a rather accurate answer

Humanity is psychologically and sociologically uncomfortable with unanswerable questions and indeterminate purpose for the most part. This is not a criticism of believers or a claim that atheists have a better worldview. I'm not above either, but not the case here. It's certainly understandable to everyone, even from an evolutionary point of view ironically enough, that there is an advantage to the group that says together with one voice "this is what we're here for and this is what we must do to be good". The group instead that says "well we really have no clue that we're 'for' anything, and that any measure of goodness is speculative at best and chaotic at worst". Which makes a better battle cry? Which makes it more easy to encourage sacrifice and group cohesion? It scarcely matters which one is most logically and rationally valid even today, and certainly has not for 99+% of human history. Belief in a higher purpose and meaning and goal does a much better job at this than purely critical thinking can.

Belief in gods is much like patriotism here. There could be reasons aplenty to consider say, Greece superior to Turkey and vice versa, but without passionate and somewhat unfounded BELIEF that one of them IS superior and that it is worth dying to prove that, what could cause people to march to war? It's easy to say wars are fought for money and power but that's only true at the very apex of the society. The thousands who died on either side killing each other so that a tiny fraction could get that power and that money did so because they BELIEVED in the cause they were fighting for. Same reason you'd want to spend decades as a missionaryt in an inhospitable place far from your home, or yes same reason why you might think it is necessary to sell all your belongings and give them to the poor (who are now by definition richer than you). Pure reason usually only leads to reasonable actions. It takes belief to do the unreasonable - bad or good. Of course I'm fully aware individual atheists can be incredibly charitable - at least 3 if not 4 of the top 5 - but Soros et al are not wearing nothing but a begging bowl. Neither of course, are they flying into buildings for their cause.

Take away that cause (or "meaning" as those who believe in the cause would name it) and you get a lot of people not knowing what's important and what they need to do, because they are now missing the object that gave them that motivation.

[Jim__]

39. "Pure reason usually only leads to reasonable actions. It takes belief to do the unreasonable ..."

I agree that pure reason makes it more difficult to be willing to die for your cause. But, I'm not sure that being willing to die for your group (tribe, family, ...) is unreasonable (reason also carries a connotation of common sense).

In the past, when wars were fought between tribes, they were often survive or perish events for the entire tribe. Belief in an afterlife (which often accompanies a belief in a deity) could make one more willing to die for the cause. This could give a "religious" tribe an advantage over a non-religious tribe. Under the larger picture, that willingness to sacrifice for the cause, may be the more reasonable approach.

[darkstar3]

40. I'm smellin' a lot pure speculation coming off of that post...n/t

[rug]

12. Because the universe is not alive. We are.

[LAGC]

15. That's an interesting take.

Do you think we're the only life-forms out there though, in this vast universe?

[rug]

17. Likely the only sentient forms humanity will encounter in its existence.

I've often puzzled on what the phrase made in the image of God means. I keep returning to the notion of consciousness.

[AlecBGreen]

19. that is my understanding of God as well

:hi:

[AlecBGreen]

18. if one part has life, ALL is alive

I dont mean to sound all "philosophical" but if one part has certain characteristic, can you not truthfully say "the whole" contains the same characteristic?

Can we not say with some truthfulness that the Earth is alive? No one would argue that the solid rock beneath our feet is a thinking creature, but if the Earth is covered in and surrounded by life, so can we not say that the planet is, in some sense, itself alive?

[patrice]

21. Right. We are the ones who create the lines. Words mean what we say they mean.

[patrice]

20. So it is y/ours to say what life is and what it is not, when we didn't create it in the first place?

Aren't you assuming that the letters l, i, f, and e are the same thing as that to which they refer? That whatever definition you hang on that arbitrary combination of sounds, that definition is equal to and no more, nor less, than the sum and total of some very complex phenomenon in this world AND that not only can you/we create that absolute definition and its arbitrary label, we can also apply it to an entire cosmos that scientists pretty much agree may have up to 11 dimensions.

How's it feel to be God?

[rug]

22. Frankly, the concept of life is not all that difficult to grasp.

[patrice]

26. Of course it isn't. I can google too.You miss my point. Please answer my question.

[rug]

29. It doesn't require Google.

As to your question, its premise is that life was created. Is that indeed your premise?

[patrice]

27. P.S. That seems more a case for reason than it does for faith.

[rug]

30. They are complementary.

[ZombieHorde]

36. We are a part of the universe, so part of the universe is alive. nt

[Nihil]

42. *At least* part of the universe is alive.

The outermost layer of my skin (and several assorted bits within it)
is dead though underlying regions are still alive (and, to be gross,
so are many organisms on its dead surface).

I still regard myself as being "alive" rather than "partly alive".

Is there a problem with extending that view to the Universe?
:shrug:

[ZombieHorde]

44. This is more of a semantical situation than an actual alive/dead situation.

If we were to consider the whole universe to be alive, then all reports of war dead would be lies and the crime of murder would be impossible.

Saying someone is alive, regardless of dead skin, cut fingernails, etc., is for convenience. Just like saying a rock is an object, even though technically a rock is an arrangement of many quarks.

[AlecBGreen]

14. short & dirty answers

"Is it because of tradition?" I think that plays a large part in my own spirituality. Had I been born a Muslim, I would most likely be a practicing Muslim.

"Is it because of prayer?" Yes! When I pray for more than just a moment, I feel different. Is it biochemistry? A higher power? Both? I dont know for certain, but when I pray I awaken a part of me that feels right.

"Is it because of the social services that your church provides..." Im not sure thats a reason for WHY I believe in God, but it certainly reinforces my faith. The Bible, my upbringing, and my own moral compass all point me down that road. I fall short but I hope I will improve. I dont spend nearly enough time in the service of the less fortunate.

"Is it because there seem to be forces unexplainable in the world..." This is a certainty, that there are things which the human mind is (in my POV) incapable of comprehending. Like the scale of the universe. You can kind of get a fuzzy idea of how big it is but you will never really "get it." The concept of God helps to ease my mind. I think to myself, "Its beyond your understanding. Accept it and move on." This frame of mind certainly doesnt require a God, but since I accept the existence of God, it fits with my world-view. (p.s. side note. I teach Earth Science. I saw a calculation which tried to give a comparison for the size of the universe. It said this: For every grain of sand on Earth, for every grain of sand on all the beaches, in all the deserts, EVERY little tiny speck of sand... there are ONE HUNDRED stars in the universe. The next time you go to the beach, grab a handful of the stuff and try and let THAT sink in!)

Obviously this discussion, the existence or non-existence of God has been an ongoing one since humans first had the capacity to think. No amount of arguments can prove it, one way or the other. I think it comes down to personal choice, what you choose to believe.

Never give up searching for the truth. Examine your world, try to get the deepest understanding you have, and dont get frustrated. For every argument there is a counterargument. Remember Walt Whitman. "Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes." Its the searching that is important. Hang in there :)

[Nihil]

43. I definitely agree with some parts of that.

> "Is it because there seem to be forces unexplainable in the world..."
> This is a certainty, that there are things which the human mind is
> (in my POV) incapable of comprehending. Like the scale of the universe.
> You can kind of get a fuzzy idea of how big it is but you will never
> really "get it." The concept of God helps to ease my mind.
> I think to myself, "Its beyond your understanding. Accept it and move on."
> This frame of mind certainly doesn't require a God, but since I accept the
> existence of God, it fits with my world-view.

I find the sheer beauty of the Universe to be fascinating as well as the
scale of it. Spending time just quietly looking at the night sky through
a telescope or powerful binoculars can be every bit as inspiring for me
as anything I've read or heard.


> No amount of arguments can prove it, one way or the other. I think it
> comes down to personal choice, what you choose to believe.

In addition, I "believe" that this personal choice should not be made
for you, not be enforced or required by any law (or prevented, as long
as it does not require/justify the contravention of any law - e.g., human
sacrifice), and the details of your choice should not be held against you
or used as a means of discrimination. (OK ... but it would be nice!)


> Never give up searching for the truth. Examine your world, try to get
> the deepest understanding you have, and don't get frustrated.
> Its the searching that is important.

There is a lot to be learned from the process of searching, not least
being the existence of alternative interpretations to your own.

:toast:

[Dorian Gray]

31. It's a combination of all of that.

I'm also the first to admit that I don't think purely logically. I like mysticism, spirituality, mysteries, etc. Religion provides that. Plus, when I think of first causes.... Big Bang, I always come back to God.

I think that's a result of my education, my family, my theological background, my prayer, the unexplained.... everything. My life experience leads me to believe.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. There are just a few things in my life that I just have never doubted

God's existence is one of them.

Oh, certainly in an intellectual, toss around ideas sort of way. But always, at bottom, I've sensed God's presence.

Now, beyond that simple presence, there's a world of theology - and my views have changed over the years, and I expect - no hope, really - that they will continue to do so. To me, that's healthy.

But I guess I've been blessed with that sense. It is a comfort - like the secure feeling a loved child can have about her parents' love, you know?

[Critters2]

34. Focusing on a non-human being breaks us free from our mimetic rivalries, nt

[Nihil]

45. "Why do I personally believe in God?" Good question.

> Is it because of tradition?

Not particularly. There have been believers in my family as there have been
agnostics and atheists. I was taught at Catholic schools but never put in
any "indoctrination" position or environment where I was not allowed to ask
questions - not by my family, not by the Jesuits who ran the church and not
by any of my teachers. I found that my questions usually led only to further
questions so I had very little of my life where I could have been said to
have been an orthodox "believer".

All that was asked was that I be as tolerant of the more unquestioning faith
of others as I would like them to be of my desire for knowledge beyond the
"take my word for it" views. On the whole, I think I've managed it. Sometimes.


> Is it because of prayer?

No. I can honestly say that I have never felt that God is "personally
listening to my prayers". I *have* appreciated the (far too rare) occasions
when I felt completely in tune with myself when meditating (or trying to
at any rate) but never viewed that moment as being "when God listened"
or other such phrases, simply as having achieved a moment of mental and/or
physiological peace. This isn't to say that I discount the possibility of
prayer (i.e., beyond the meditative or placebo effects), simply that it is
not a driver for me.


> Is it because of the social services that your church provides...

No. I do not attend a church. I give to charity both as an anonymous
individual and as a member of different organisations but don't regard
those actions as being driven by any "higher calling" than being human.


> Is it because there seem to be forces unexplainable in the world,
> and the existence of angels and demons (and deities that rule over them)
> seems to be the only possible explanation?

If you'd stopped after "world" then I might have said "Yes" :-)

There is a part of my belief that has evolved out of a "God of the Gaps"
viewpoint but those gaps have gradually got smaller as time has moved on
so that really isn't the case any more. It certainly doesn't require me
to create or hypothesize specifics such as "angels and demons and deities
that rule over them" as even a partial explanation. (On the other hand,
if such things help others interpret their experience, who am I to say
that they are definitively wrong?)


I have no problem with the concept of the Big Bang (nor of cyclical universes
that bang/expand/contract/bang/expand/...) but find it "convenient" to posit
"God" as the initiator (the "First Cause" approach).

I've written simple programs to simulate lifeforms & natural processes and
played with other (much better) ones that have far greater detail or scope
or effectiveness (e.g., range of accuracy). Once the basic program has been
created and the initial conditions loaded, there is no action required from
me (the programmer) other than to observe the ongoing results.

That's about the level of interaction that I expect from God in my belief
system: set up the boundary conditions, press the button and watch.

It also explains why I find the Masonic view easy to accept (the existence
of a Creator but using a generic label of "Great Architect of the Universe"
rather than any specific factional name) as once all of the preparatory work,
the thought, the design, the draftsmanship has been done, there is little
(if any) interaction with the structure for the rest of its lifespan.


> Or is it something else entirely?

It is a combination of all of the aspects of my upbringing, my education,
my moving background through life, unexplained events/phenomena, everything
in toto that has defined the "me"-ness of "me" has, by definition, also
shaped my beliefs.

I have had moments that fit the "Peak Experience" descriptions (fittingly
enough, once on top of a Scottish mountain) when I knew in every element
of my consciousness how everything fitted together, interacted, related.
I've had feelings of sheer wonder at the scale of the Universe, at the
"magic" of life in hostile environments, at events that are normally hidden
from view by their timescale (either so much faster than usual perception
or so much slower) or simply their size (needing tools from a scanning
microscope up to a radio telescope).


Someone upthread phrased it as "My life experience leads me to believe"
but I'd modify it slightly to "My life experience leads me to have beliefs"
as that more closely matches the fuzziness, the lack of hard defining lines
and the lack of hard faith "just because" that I feel. There is a "something"
but I'm buggered if I can define it so I end up agreeing with the Taoist view:
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the real Tao".

:shrug: