Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Belief formation is complex, and there is not a soul alive that has ever only believed what is logically or experimentally provable--that would be a form of insanity.
The entire post summed the issues up tidily, but I pulled this quote out for its cutting to the heart of the matter. We're only presenting our sides. I'm not here to judge. However, in almost every post arguing against the existence of God I find there's (often overt) emotionalism that stands as validated but is rather otherwise, and prosecutorial furthermore.
The OP itself: "Despite being a very simple question, and one which I'm sure many of you have considered, I realize it's probably difficult for most believers to truly comprehend." Where in that self-contented statement is the complexity of belief formation acknowledged? Where is it even analyzed--y'know, rationally, scientifically? (It can be done...actually...)
Still, we're basically discussing affinities here, which are compelling in themselves, but can only be argued philosophically. Wouldn't that be a good "experiment"?
In human terms or comprehension it maybe too complex for a rational answer as we are so clueless about "timelines" We mere homosapiens can't even figure out who discovered america. Our very philosophies cry out for getting beyond "duh". Now that I have made clowns out of society (me included) let use "decide when the creator of all mankind and the universe was for cryin out loud ...born. Ah! piece of cake? No. God wasn't born as He always was. With respect to earth that
speck in the universe yet where God decided to create all thats earth. Let "us" create man in our image. We christians believe the "us" are God Jesus and His spirit yet
one (I won't go thereas it will open a can of worms yet something I even get). Jesus was the Alpha Omega and "get ready" the begining and the end what? So Jesus and God at a minimum existed in the beginning of the universe. By faith we believe "they" always were and always will be based on the promise of eternity we perceive that God made up of three distinct manifestations all co equal were here even before the universe in order to create it. Opps! now I'am falling victim of
taking a human view on a matter we cannot really understand fully. God stuff is a great and enjoyable subject for debate and city data has people aren't affaid to debate all aspects of beliefs as opposed to those whole wimp around and .........well...can't dance.
Last edited by DASULAR17; 01-05-2010 at 02:23 PM..
Reason: typo's
(1) We should only believe things that have a scientific explanation, that are verified on the basis of the "scientific method"
So you must have used the scientific method to verify the truth of (1), or else you wouldn't believe it, right? You must have a scientific explanation to back up your claim that you are justified in believing that (1) is true. So what "scientific explanation" do you have for believing that we should only believe what has a scientific explanation?
uggghh!!!
What kind of twisted question is that??
I'll respond later. Back to work here.
The entire post summed the issues up tidily, but I pulled this quote out for its cutting to the heart of the matter. We're only presenting our sides. I'm not here to judge. However, in almost every post arguing against the existence of God I find there's (often overt) emotionalism that stands as validated but is rather otherwise, and prosecutorial furthermore.
The OP itself: "Despite being a very simple question, and one which I'm sure many of you have considered, I realize it's probably difficult for most believers to truly comprehend." Where in that self-contented statement is the complexity of belief formation acknowledged? Where is it even analyzed--y'know, rationally, scientifically? (It can be done...actually...)
Still, we're basically discussing affinities here, which are compelling in themselves, but can only be argued philosophically. Wouldn't that be a good "experiment"?
Bunjee, I agree.
Let me actually expand on the things I said, and you can tell me what you think. I tried to give a basic theory, a brief description of some of the complexity involved in belief formation. The next step is to make a judgment, to argue for one side or another. Freud actually did something similar. He argued that religious beliefs (theistic or Christian) are nothing but illusion, since they are based on wish fulfillment. So the impulse to believe in God is grounded in a wish, a desire. So that's what the atheist side can say about religious belief formation. But, one problem with Freud here is that he assumes that God does not exist, and then proceeds to explain how people come to believe in God (when no such being exists). (If anyone knows more about Freud, I'd welcome your comments)
Now, I would argue that hope is not a bad thing, but a very good thing, a necessary thing to have to live, to flourish, to face life. And contrary to Freud, religious beliefs are not merely stemming from wish fulfillment, but from hope (which is valuable, and necessary for life). Christian belief begins in hope and faith (trust), and a favorable attitude towards the possibility of God's existence. It begins with a favorable attitude towards the possibility of God's love, which is a necessary prerequisite for coming to know that God exists and loves you. Freud would say that if there is no God, then theistic belief is mere wish fulfillment. This is right. But what if there is a God? What if there is a Divine sovereign, who has created the world and guides history and loves us? Then hope is not a mere illusion, a mere fancy, but hope in such a being is a virtue, a wonder, a life-giving force.
One thing that is easily lost in all these discussions is the aspect of the divine that demands worship. Throughout history gods have been worshipped. And the God of Christianity is no exception--He is to be worshipped. He may in some sense be our friend. He may love. But above all He demands respect--for this is His proper due, as the Being who has created, sustained, and continues to guide the world. And His existence itself is a good thing. So if we do not approach the idea of God, of His existence, with a positive attitude towards His existence, then we are not thinking clearly enough about the issue--that is, we are not thinking about it in the proper fashion, which would allow us to enter into a relationship with the Creator.
Now, there are a lot of gaps in this broad theory I'm outlining. But I'm suggesting that hope and faith play crucial roles in belief formation of the divine. And without having even the positive attitude toward the possibility of the divine, we are not open to, and therefore cannot really respond appropriately to, God. Of course, this explanation comes entirely from a Christian perspective, and others may be tempted to give competing explanations (as I see again and again on these boards).
"I believe all people receive divine communications that God knows each person will interpret differently according to different desires and prior experiences. I believe God could communicate much more clearly (in human terms) to everyone, but does not, in order to bring people to face their conflicting interpretations about the purpose of existence, the nature of God, and the way we should treat each other. I believe this unclear communication allows us to wrestle over truth as a test of our desire to love others in spite of our conviction that they are dangerously wrong about important truths. The world is designed for people to disagree and then decide what to do about it." C. Randall Paul
If his beliefs are accurate, sounds like this god is more interested in playing games with us rather than trying to have a relationship. I would not want a deep committed relationship with someone who goes out of their way to mislead or confuse me to serve their own needs - not sure why it's considered an asset when that someone is god.
I'm simply putting forward a hypothesis for how many people form religious beliefs, which can apply to believer or non-believer.
And I'm just asking for examples of things you think closed-minded atheists ignore. It may be just a "hypothesis", but even those have some evidence before they're taken seriously.
It's got to be more than just the fact that atheists don't automatically believe stuff which other people believe because it makes those other people feel warm and fuzzy inside, but that's all the positive evidence I've seen you put forth.
Quote:
And since the truth is illusive with respect to finding unassailable arguments for either side, and reason is inconclusive, we ask for what we have a right to believe--that is, what justifications do we have for believing whether God exists or doesn't, or some other metaphysical worldview. And this is where we bring our full person into the picture, not just the detached "intellect" that fails to prove things one way or the other. We approach such questions with the intellect, but also with desires, feelings, wishes, fears, longings, despair, etc. This is true for everyone who seriously considers such matters.
All of this is just deflecting away from the fact there's no reason to believe in the first place.
In that respect, it's not anything which requires any particular emotional investment from anyone who doesn't already believe in it. Again, just because it's the most important thing in your life doesn't make it all that big a deal to anyone else in particular.
Quote:
And you can continue to claim that atheists are smarter than theists
I'd have to claim this before continuing to claim it.
Quote:
There are likewise brilliant atheists, who also have clever arguments. Because of this, I would say that our religious beliefs are not about how intelligent or brilliant we are, but they are formed, at least in part, because of something else within us. And maybe this has to do with what we hope and wish and long for (or don't).
Again, just because some people rationalize irrational beliefs doesn't mean that rejecting them is an emotional response.
Quote:
I do think, however, that when atheists make sweeping claims about how intellectually superior they are to believers, they are being close-minded to how their own non-cognitive mental states influence their belief formation.
I'm not sure you realize how it comes across when you tell other people that you know better than they do how they formed their beliefs. This is especially an issue when you get the facts about the process wrong.
Quote:
Well, that's an opinion, no doubt. But there are lots of other ways of looking at the issue. Maybe you like seeing it from this angle? Maybe it satisfies you in some way? (And by raising these questions I'm not trying to be flip)
Maybe you don't have a reasonable answer to my objection and want to distract people from that fact by asking a bunch of unrelated questions?
Quote:
Now, you would be right to throw this theory back in my face if you wanted to. You could say that my own religious beliefs have been influenced by my hopes and desires, my fears, longings, etc. And I would agree. The value that I put on the object of a religious belief affects how I will respond (whether I will believe or not). And for me, personally, my own belief in God begins primarily with a "pro-attitude," a favorable inclination toward God, and a hope that He is, that He loves, that one day every tear shall be wiped clean.
That's great. Just stop claiming that people who don't share your belief do so only because they arbitrarily make the opposite assumptions.
E.g. - You believe in Santa because you like how getting gifts makes you feel. Don't assume people who don't believe in Santa do so because they don't like getting gifts. There's lots of other possible reasons to reject the idea of Santa as a real person even if you like getting gifts. Likewise, it's very possible to reject gods without presuming that god is bad or belief is evil.
The fundamental equation in any religion or belief system is faith in a god or higher power. My question is, who created god? We know that something can't exist from nothing, so where exactly did this "man in the sky" come from?
Despite being a very simple question, and one which I'm sure many of you have considered, I realize it's probably difficult for most believers to truly comprehend.
How did god come into existence?
The World came from a singularity, and that singularity is the existence of the the beginning making the continuity of the World change under a plan of God's activity or occasional intervention. But perhaps the singularity Exists now, and therefore the issue of God intervening need not come into play. The world exists miraculously now and forever, and the End in Mind though singularly impossible IS possible in a mental structure of God in and for the Self.
In a sense the government in Islamic countries is self-justified to the inclusion of singular awareness. SPeaking Orwellian that would meant that the governments are determined by the request of people everywhere to dismiss the singular acts of the few. Any one can see that the rule is through the organized concept of responsibility OR consent to advice.
Last edited by tgnostic; 01-06-2010 at 09:23 AM..
Reason: spelling added issues out.
The fundamental equation in any religion or belief system is faith in a god or higher power. My question is, who created god? We know that something can't exist from nothing, so where exactly did this "man in the sky" come from?
Despite being a very simple question, and one which I'm sure many of you have considered, I realize it's probably difficult for most believers to truly comprehend.
How did god come into existence?
The only logical conclusion is that he is eternal. He never came unto existence. The alternative is to believe in an infinite regression of creators.
If his beliefs are accurate, sounds like this god is more interested in playing games with us rather than trying to have a relationship. I would not want a deep committed relationship with someone who goes out of their way to mislead or confuse me to serve their own needs - not sure why it's considered an asset when that someone is god.
Perhaps it's not God who is having difficulty communicating with us, maybe it's us who are having difficulty paying attention and understanding the message. (Like teenagers interacting with their parents.) When was the last time you humbly and sincerely knelt in prayer, seeking a response from God? (You won't get counsel from your earthly dad unless you visit or call him then pay attention to what he's telling you - why expect different treatment from your Heavenly Father?)
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." James 1: 5
When was the last time you actually did your best to keep God's commandments? (If you consistently disobeyed your earthly dad's counsel I think he'd soon just give up on you and watch perhaps with dismay as you go your own way when he could have saved you a lot of unnecessary steps and perhaps much failure and heartache.)
As I see it, this world and its environment, the lights in the sky, everything is just well stocked kindergartens, grade schools, colleges, and universities to help God's celestial family (that's us) learn and make choices towards growing up to be like their Heavenly Parent, or less like Him.
It would be nice if we remembered everything we knew before we came here but it would defeat the purpose of spending time in a mortal environment where we can be tried and tested to see where we will best fit in to the family business when we've grown up. At some point in the future perhaps well beyond the death of our physical body, our memory of perhaps eons of time spent learning in a premortal life may be restored. Who knows, maybe we already know how to do such simple things as create planets and solar systems? Maybe all we really need to do is to demonstrate that we'll be obedient to our Heavenly Parents so we don't royally mess up something important, and learn how to thoroughly love all of our brothers and sisters so we don't interact with them in the eternities like we tend to do on earth.
I think that the ultimate reality is much simpler than scholars and parts of our mortal minds tend to make it out to be. I think everything is just a family affair. I think we are LITERALLY the children of the God who made this world, the lights in the sky, etc. We're just here because it's our turn on earth right now and that brief encounter with mortality is a necessary part of our growing up experience.
I appreciate your comments, and your good-faith effort to engage. I don't have time to answer everything you're saying in detail. But, very quickly, I am not saying the following things:
--that people believe because it makes them feel "warm and fuzzy"
--that atheists don't believe (or hold contrary beliefs) only because they "arbitrarily make the opposite assumptions"
So, I agree with a lot of what you say, since it's not what I'm saying.
I suspect you might be conflating a few issues. Here are three different things we need to distinguish: (1) whether religious beliefs are justified or not, (2) whether religious beliefs are true, and (3) what causes us to hold religious beliefs. Even if a particular religious belief (atheist or theist) is justified, it doesn't mean that it is true (likewise, true beliefs are not always justified); and simply because I point out some of the causes or influences behind a belief doesn't necessarily imply the belief is either false or unjustified. I'm right now primarily interested in causes of belief. So, for example, your comments that "just because some people rationalize irrational beliefs doesn't mean that rejecting them is an emotional response" is correct, but you bring in the issue of justification, which I'm not concerned with here. Of course, while I agree with your statement, I don't agree that it applies to theistic beliefs (but again, that's another topic).
Now, I don't know why you disagree with me when I say that beliefs--in particular, beliefs about religious objects (e.g., God) are influenced by the way we feel about the object. You ask for evidence, yet this seems almost self-evident to me. It follows from a very general observation that we are complex creatures that have both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects (these are in a give-and-take relation within us, striving with one another). You really think this is controversial? Plato thought this was true--and he advised that we ought to use reason to control the passions. Freud (who took a lot from Plato) thought this was true as well, and he held that religious beliefs (those held by "believers") are merely illusion. Read my previous post (above) where I talk about Freud, and let me know what you think. I think they (Plato, Freud) are tracking something important here. Do you really disagree with this? (Or maybe your disagreement has to do with other things I said?)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
of the matter. We're only presenting our sides. I'm not here to judge. However, in almost every post arguing against the existence of God I find there's (often overt) emotionalism that stands as validated but is rather otherwise, and prosecutorial furthermore.
Good point. It is appropriate NOW.
