What would convince Believers that they've been wrong all along?

[EchoKitty]

In an effort to correct a hijack of the "Rapture" thread (sorry, Dreamer), I'm interested in hearing what believers (particularly christians)think would be adequate proof that god doesn't exist. Some have said that they would probably only be swayed by other christians who believed they were wrong. Obviously, if there is no god, you're not going to get a divine message, so tell me, what would prove to you that god doesn't exist?

[WV_Woman]

Nothing would convince me that God doesn't exist.

[Rhapsody]

you can't prove something doesn't exist. For instance show me proof that there is no easter bunny or santa claus...I bet you can't do it.

What would it take to prove to you that God DOES exist?

[keeper0]

I think it is a fair question to ask, particularly of Dreamer since she asked the obverse question back to us. We answered that fairly honestly and thoroughly, and it was appropriate to know where she was coming from.

The problem is that the answer is not going to be logical. Belief is based on faith and "personal experience"*. The only thing that challenges the belief will be a personal experience which is interpreted to contravene the belief.

_{* As opposed to objective evidence, though philosophical nitpickers can argue those terms}

It is not a level playing field. Rational debate will not change the mind of a believer any more than WV_Woman witnessing her faith to me will change my 'rationalist' mindset.
It is like asking who would win a game between the San Francisco Giants and the New York Giants. It depends on whether they are playing baseball or football.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't talk about it. Discussion and debate is good, but it helps to keep the underlying structure in mind.

I suspect that despite her universal statement, WV_Woman has her moments of doubt as befits a living human being. What experiences would increase or decrease those moments, I don't know, since it is a personal thing, but I am sure there are some. If she is willing to share, the better question might be "What kind of experiences test your faith the most?"

Rhapsody falls back on logical sophistry. Yes, you can't conclusively prove non-existence. But it is still reasonable to ask "What evidence would it take for you to accept non-existence as true?"
In the other thread, most rationalists said they would accept objective evidence of God's existence. Until that is presented, the evidence pretty solidly points to a distant or non-existent God. If you want to debate that further, go there.

[EchoKitty]

Anything that could be seen or heard would be sufficient. A god sighting has never been documented. I never said I could prove that god doesn't exist. All I'm saying is that I'm not going to behave as though something exists when in fact I don't know that it does. And, by the way, Rhapsody, this thread was started because there is already a thread about what it would take non-believers to believe that god exists. It's the "rapture" thread. My question (should you choose to answer) is what would make you believe that there is no god?

[ultrafilter]

I doubt that anything will. The question of the existence of God, like so many others, is one of those where the evidence falls down squarely in favor of whatever side you already believe in. If a person does change their beliefs, it's due to a change of heart, not because some particular fact comes up.

The above, of course, is a generalization, and is probably wrong.

[dreamer]

Can you give me some examples (obviously hypothetical) of what you think could bring doubt, test our faith etc? Obviously there is evolution and scientific theory, but what circumstances would you envision happening to a believer in order for them to change their faith?

[Meatros]

I am a Christian, and nothing would change my mind. I think faith should be independent of evidence. My faith is independent of evidence (as it should be IMHO) and I think that it is important for faith to stand on it's on legs.

If their was proof of God, what good would faith be?

[JRDelirious]

Rhapsody makes a great point.



The General Theory of "God" is non-falsifiable: we cannot fashion an objective scientific experiment or logical theorem that constitutes negative proof. Attempting to "disprove God" is pointless.

Now, demonstrating, experimentally and logically, that for any number of natural and social phenomena a divine intervention is undetectable, unnecessary, not logically consistent with objective observation, indistinguishable from material processes, or just plain not the best explanation -- and that thus, by preponderance of evidence, a reasonable person should conclude that the naturalist, materialist explanation is the correct one -- that is not a disproof of God. It's just a proof of the causes of (depending on the case: some/many/most/all) worldly phenomena. The most that can manage is to provide evidence to convince believers that their interpretation of what god(s) may be like, or may be up to, needs to be reevaluated.

[teemingONE]

um... when we die, and we aren't at the gates or in the pits......

[ResIpsaLoquitor]

Geeze, that's a tough one...although WV Woman phrased it a little too bluntly, I think the point is that it's hard for a believer to "undo" something they've come to accept as a regular part of their lives. A lot of people have been genuinely "touched" by God to an extent that isn't easy to put into words, but I think is observable through a marked change in their behavior and outlook on life. (I went through a conversion experience myself in college; most people who knew me at the time were astonished that my teenage angst and suicidal tendencies had suddenly disappeared in such a short time.)

Which is not to say that we don't go through periods of personal doubt, although experience has taught me that doubt usually comes from a desire to simplify things in order to escape some hardship, rather than from objective, impirical evidence. (I.e., I had a really hard semester once in college where everything went seriously wrong, including two deaths in my family. I was tempted to take the athiestic route for awhile, as I didn't want to reconcile my pain with the concept of a loving God. Eventually, I just realized that I was making excuses so I wouldn't have to deal with my suffering. In other words, I wasn't really making a rational analysis of God's existence: I just wanted the hurt to go away.)

It probably comes down to one of those "I'll find out when I die" things. My $0.02.

[MrO]

Originally posted by Rhapsody
you can't prove something doesn't exist. For instance show me proof that there is no easter bunny or santa claus...I bet you can't do it.

No, I can't prove that they don't exist. But how many of us believe that they do? I don't, and for pretty much the same reasons, I don't believe that God exists.

Originally posted by dreamer
Can you give me some examples (obviously hypothetical) of what you think could bring doubt, test our faith etc?

Thinking critically about why you don't believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus (assuming that you don't believe in them) would probably do it. But that, as you say, is obviously hypothetical.

[ultrafilter]

You *can* prove that something doesn't exist. All you have to do is show that it's logically impossible.

[Aro]

There have been stories (no cites) of preachers / ministers losing their faith in God due to enduring incredible emotional hardships where they felt the God they believed in so strongly had abandoned them.
( Although, logically, even if their God had left them, it shows they still had a strong belief in His existance to think He had abondoned them. )

Maybe the loss of faith is an (almost necessary) temporary hiccup on a greater, longer spiritual journey which will later reinforce your beliefs to yourself.
But I'm just guessing really.

[EchoKitty]

Maybe I should have worded the OP differently, as I know that the proof thing is impossible (from a negative standpoint). But, you don't have proof that a god exists, either. So what would make you reevaluate your stance? For instance, god is supposed to be good and powerful, yet we see pain, disease, famine, floods, suffering of all kinds, put on many of the world's innocents. To me, the reality of the situation is that there is no powerful being that can control or judge, because, plainly, he doesn't do it. You say that only the believers get help. But then he's not a very good diety, is he? He's credited for all these things, yet he doesn't really let anyone know in any tangible form that he's there. It's all faith. Strictly a hopeful, wishful thought process that draws the believers to god. Which is fine, if you draw comfort from the delusion. If you think your life is worth more than the next guy's, that's your perogative.

These are precisely the things that make it clear to me that a god doesn't exist (at least, not in the christian, controlling, judgmental form). To me it is very obvious. How many prayers would have to be ignored before you would think that there's nobody listening at the other end of the line? How many innocent children would have to be beaten or starved before you would say to yourself that divine intervention is long overdue, and probably not on the way?

[Crusoe]

Something that might test your faith? Loss of a close relative? Particularly if it was in a painful or futile way.

[MrVisible]

The question of what would get someone to believe in god isn't as interesting to me as this question:

What would it take for you to give up your religion?

[rsa]

Originally posted by dreamer
Can you give me some examples (obviously hypothetical) of what you think could bring doubt, test our faith etc? Obviously there is evolution and scientific theory, but what circumstances would you envision happening to a believer in order for them to change their faith?

I am curious if this actual (not hypothetical) example causes a Christian a moment of doubt.

You may have heard this on the news a couple of months ago. A group of Christian teenagers were leaving on a bus trip from their church in the Dallas area to travel to a church camp 250 miles away. The teenagers prayed for a safe trip before departing. Sadly, not too far from Dallas the bus driver fell asleep and the bus crashed into a bridge support killing four or five of the kids and injuring many more.

Does this trouble a Christian at all (not the tragedy itself, but from a theological perspective)?

[EchoKitty]

Mr. Visible, what would it take to GIVE UP YOUR RELIGION, or give up on religion ALTOGETHER? I've seen many people change faiths, but I think there are fewer that give it up altogether. I'd like to hear from both camps. What does it feel like when you realize that your belief system is no longer believable? Do you feel stupid? Betrayed? Disillusioned?

[robertliguori]

Re the Santa/Easter Bunny issue:
We can't disprove the existence of two-sided triangles. But, because they are logically inconsistent (triangle == 3sides, two-sided == 2sides, 3sides != 2sides) they can be said to have been disproved.

[EchoKitty]

Mr. Visible, what would it take to GIVE UP YOUR RELIGION, or give up on religion ALTOGETHER? I've seen many people change faiths, but I think there are fewer that give it up altogether. I'd like to hear from both camps. What does it feel like when you realize that your belief system is no longer believable? Do you feel stupid? Betrayed? Disillusioned?

[Apos]

I wonder: if faith is based so much on personal experience, would it challenge people's faith much if it could be shown HOW their particular experiences could be easily reproduced? And showing how it can happen naturally?

That is, if after a particularly moving session of god experience, someone popped out from behind the bed with a device that could create those feelings, would this challenge anyone's faith? How about if they showed you how it works, both mechanically and biologically?

[blowero]

An interesting note here: In all the threads of the "what would it take to make you believe" type that I've seen, most non-believers have given concrete examples, and almost none have said "nothing would ever make me believe".

But in this thread, I'm noticing almost all theists so far have either said "nothing would convince me", or avoided the question altogether.

Make of this what you will.

[EchoKitty]

I noticed the same thing. What would dash your faith in god? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[WV_Woman]

If she is willing to share, the better question might be "What kind of experiences test your faith the most?"

Fair enough.

Sometimes I wonder what God's reasoning is when evil rotten nasty people prosper while some of His servants suffer (think missionaries who go off to other countries only to be martyred).

I also wonder what's up with little girls like Danielle Van Dam getting kidnapped and murdered.

Why can't God just zap all the bad people in the world, ya know?

I think everything happens for a reason (note that I did not say that everything that happens is in God's will), and while God is free to tell me the reasons behind certain things, chances are He won't. And He doesn't have to, any more than I have to explain to my daughter my reasoning behind certain rules I will set down for her when the time comes.

It is not wrong to question and to ask why, but I don't want to be one of God's kids that walks around asking "WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY" constantly like a 2 year old. Does he have to tell me everything in order for me to trust Him? No.

[JThunder]

Originally posted by Meatros
I am a Christian, and nothing would change my mind. I think faith should be independent of evidence. My faith is independent of evidence (as it should be IMHO) and I think that it is important for faith to stand on it's on legs.

If their was proof of God, what good would faith be?

I'd like to respectfully disagree with that remark. I think you're making the same mistake that many skeptics do -- confusing evidence with proof.

My faith *RESTS* on evidence. That is, I believe there's enough evidence for the Christian faith to make me accept its tenets. It is not, however, absolutely proven -- and that's where faith comes in. Faith allows one to believe in that which is not proven.

I have faith in my more trustworthy co-workers. I know that they will do their best to come through for me, because there is sufficient evidence that they will. I can not prove that they will though, and that is where faith comes in.

In fact, the New Testament writers constantly appealed to evidence, without claiming to provide proof. Matthew appealed to the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. Paul appealed to those who knew of his old lifestyle, and how he had reformed. Heck, in the story of Doubting Thomas, Jesus presented tactile evidence of his resurrection. At no point did any of these people say "How dare you ask for evidence! Just believe! Just have faith!" No, that's not what genuine faith is about.

[Apos]

So, in other words: anything that could happen is consistent with God's existence? Because no matter what it is, it could simply be explained by noting that we don't know God's plans?

[partly_warmer]

I have a close friend who went to seminary. He and his wife have been Christians all their lives. Therefore, I was astonished to discover when I visited them last, that they had stopped going to church entirely. This was just at the point he was about to be named as one of the church directors. Naturally, I asked why.

Their reasoning seemed to revolve around three things:

1) They didn't see situations where prayer helped.

2) They were annoyed with the behavior of other Christians in the church.

3) My friend had constructed an argument based on a single passage from the New Testament, that if considered in a particular way, suggested that people don't have to be Christians to follow God. I.e., that the Bible is as valid as "The Book of the Dead" and Scientology.

Intellectually, I was fascinated by the turnabout. What seemed to be the underlying cause of the change was a disappointment that being a Christian hadn't made them wealthy/wise/well-liked/healthy/respected as they had anticipated was their due.

Since my religious beliefs are not centered on the same expectations I guess my biggest surprise was that anyone would allow social situations to affect their central faith.

[keeper0]

From Partly_Warmer

They were annoyed with the behavior of other Christians in the church.

My suspicion is that this is a more common reason than despair at global suffering or receving Job-like suffering personally.

A big benefit and support of belief is a close-knit community. What if they found out something about you that they didn't like? What if you suddenly found it to be a close-knit community that looked down on you?

Without that support mechanism, would you find your faith suffering? Moving away from God due to some annoying worshippers of hers might sound like "babies and bathwater", but it is also human.

(And, yes, it isn't Christian for them to judge you, but it is also quite human.)

[Esprix]

OK, here's one:

What if the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless Her Holy Hooves) were to appear out of nowhere, rap you on the head with Her Horn, and say, "Hey! Dimbulb! There ain't no god! Give it up!"

Would you?

Esprix

[Pencil Pusher]

Or, to take Esprix's hypo a bit further...

Alien ship lands and the Aliens have the following to say...

"What? You bought into that stuff? We are soooo sorry. That was just Bob here playing a joke on you guys. Bob, come on out here and apologize"
"I'm sorry. Can I make it up to you by teaching you how to walk on water or turn water into wine for you? How about raising the dead? Would you like that?"
"How about we give you some holograms showing what really happened two thousand years ago. Or maybe we all time just travel back then ourselves. Yeah, we will show you what happened first hand. You should really hear Bob when he was on that Mountain giving that sermon - he was laughing for weeks."

Would that make one of the devout Christians doubt your beliefs? Is there any hypothetical evidence would be sufficient to convince you that the Bible got it wrong? What about the same story without the time travel? What if they didn't have the holograms? What if they could turn water into wine and walk on water, but not raise the dead?

[MrO]

Originally posted by EchoKitty
I've seen many people change faiths, but I think there are fewer that give it up altogether. I'd like to hear from both camps. What does it feel like when you realize that your belief system is no longer believable? Do you feel stupid? Betrayed? Disillusioned?

I'm not a believer, but I used to be. I didn't just go sit in the pews on Sunday; I always took it pretty seriously. I read and studied the Bible. It was always in the back of my mind, even as a child, that this whole thing could be just an elaborate story that has been built up and grown over the years. Oh, it's true, I told myself--but it's conceivable that it's just made up. Not necessarily a hoax, with someone behind it; just a story that got misinterpreted and handed down, and re-misinterpreted and handed down again, and so on.

Then I started to be more and more uncomfortable with some of the contradictions in the Bible. Is it literally true, as I was told? Not possible. Is it symbolically true? To a degree, maybe; but how to decode the symbols? I grew more and more uncomfortable with conflicting doctrine between various Christian groups. I looked into other religions, to compare. Mostly Buddhism, but all the other big ones, and a few of the more obscure ones. I noticed that they had some features that I liked, but also some that I thought were kind of silly. Then I looked back at Christianity, and realized that none of those other religions were any sillier than the one I had grown up in.

For years, I told myself that it's the same message, just delivered to different groups in a different metaphor. All equally valid, just different. No way God could just condemn to hell all the Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Plenty of Christians assured me that he could, but I couldn't swallow that.

I studied some science--not much, but enough to find that as time goes on, more and more "supernatural" events that I learned about in church could be explained scientifically. No problem, I thought--God set the whole science thing in motion. I could reconcile God and evolution.

I studied some history. I learned about how the development of the church was so enormously political, about how people with power influenced the church to serve their own ends. I realized that modern Christianity has only the vaguest resemblance to anything Jesus invisioned. The more I studied (undergrad minor in history, plus lots of personal study), the more I saw religion as an excellent way of controlling people, used by the scrupulous and the unscrupulous alike.

I studied some cultural anthropology--not much, but enough to think about the role that religion plays in human society, and about the possible origins of it, and about who might be served by its propagation.

I studied some philosophy, focusing mostly on deontology (the study of morality, basically) and the nature of belief. The more I studied, the more I realized that belief is not something we choose. For most people, religious belief is accepted from childhood and never really examined. In most other arenas, people believe things or not based on evidence, but in religion, it seems that evidence is not required. Scripture does give some evidence, but what's the evidence to support the validity of that evidence? Pretty thin. I realized, as mentioned before, that the reasons not to believe in Santa Claus applied almost perfectly to God as well.

So I discovered that I no longer believed. I didn't choose to stop believing; my belief disappeared spontaneously as I learned to think critically. I also discovered that for the first time in my life, I was happy. I had peace of mind. I was no longer confused and paranoid.

I did feel a little betrayed and disillusioned, but not stupid. For the first time in my life, I felt I wasn't stupid. It felt good. I'll admit that there were certain things I missed. I like some church music, for example. But you know what? I can still listen to it. Socially, church was a big part of my early life, and that left a little hole. I soon found that there were other, better things to fill that hole with.

I apologize if this lengthy post is not what the OP asked for. It just seems that many of the believers here are declaring their minds closed, so I thought it might be useful to hear from a former believer whose mind is open.

[Edlyn]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
Nothing would convince me that God doesn't exist.

I stand with WV_Woman on this. There were a lot of suggestions made so far in this thread that may have provided some personal doubt for others, but I honestly cannot conjure up any scenario that would cause me personal doubt about His existence.

I am one of those "forty-something" year olds that can look back on their life and know that they have experienced much (which has covered areas you question), certainly enough to test but also more than enough to affirm His existance.

keeper0
I suspect that despite her universal statement, WV_Woman has her moments of doubt as befits a living human being. What experiences would increase or decrease those moments, I don't know, since it is a personal thing, but I am sure there are some. If she is willing to share, the better question might be "What kind of experiences test your faith the most?"

Every "test" thrown my way was never without His presence with me which I felt and knew was there. There have been times when He has even forewarned me of what would pass.

In answer to your last question, what can test one's faith the most is your (grand) child being diagnosed with brain cancer; a very rare type which no little ones like him have ever survived. We were blessed to have had Dawson an additional year and ten days following his diagnosis. Never once, however, did I doubt God's existence. His touch in our lives was often during this time and continues still 20 mos following Dawson's crossing over. In fact, within the past two weeks our family has learned that two of our daughters are expecting a child. One child is due within days of my dad's birthday (he crossed over 11 weeks after Dawson) and the other child is due on Dawson's birthday. (Note to Apos: No, both daughters were not trying to become pregnant and no they did not schedule their ovulation. )

Esprix
What if the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless Her Holy Hooves) were to appear out of nowhere, rap you on the head with Her Horn, and say, "Hey! Dimbulb! There ain't no god! Give it up!"

Would you?

Based on that? Nope. Even Homer could claim that.

[Apos]

---I honestly cannot conjure up any scenario that would cause me personal doubt about His existence.---

So, as I noted before: absolutely anything is consistent with god's existence?

In that case, what can possibly be meant by "god exists"?

[Edlyn]

MrO:

Unlike you, I was not brought in a Christian household. My dad left the Catholic Church when he was 21 (despite nearly becoming a priest) and my mom never sets foot in a church except for weddings and funerals and does not believe in Christ. In fact, the household I grew up in looked down on Christians, but we allowed to choose a church to attend so us children would blend easier with society.

Not exactly furtile ground for "christian brainwashing". We were encouraged to examine and explore spiritual matters and determine for ourselves what the truth may be. Even against the odds, I have always known Him. I still have a memory from when I was two-and-a-half years old, looking up at the sky towards God and complaining that everything was so big and I was so small. I felt His presence with me then and still do.

I agree with you about organized religion and I still apply the examine and explore to the bible (etc.), parts of which need to be understood in the context in which they were written.

My mind remains open, but that does not mean I will abandon what I believe to be true.

Apos:

Just saw your note while previewing this post. What appears consistent is that I don't understand your question (again). Could you elaborate?

[Edlyn]

MrO:

Unlike you, I was not brought in a Christian household. My dad left the Catholic Church when he was 21 (despite nearly becoming a priest) and my mom never sets foot in a church except for weddings and funerals and does not believe in Christ. In fact, the household I grew up in looked down on Christians, but we allowed to choose a church to attend so us children would blend easier with society.

Not exactly furtile ground for "christian brainwashing". We were encouraged to examine and explore spiritual matters and determine for ourselves what the truth may be. Even against the odds, I have always known Him. I still have a memory from when I was two-and-a-half years old, looking up at the sky towards God and complaining that everything was so big and I was so small. I felt His presence with me then and still do.

I agree with you about organized religion and I still apply the examine and explore to the bible (etc.), parts of which need to be understood in the context in which they were written.

My mind remains open, but that does not mean I will abandon what I believe to be true.

Apos:

Just saw your note while previewing this post. What appears consistent is that I don't understand your question (again). Could you elaborate?

[partly_warmer]

MrO said, "I did feel a little betrayed and disillusioned, but not stupid. For the first time in my life, I felt I wasn't stupid. It felt good."

Such is the way of things. I had nearly the opposite experience. When I converted from not believing, after years of reading and philosophy classes, I felt a burden of false arguments and denials I'd carried suddenly lifted. Things I'd worried about endlessly became understandable. I wasn't afraid that someone's position would threaten my beliefs -- I was suddenly willing to listen to any argument. For the first time, I wasn't protecting my religious beliefs.

You just have to open your eyes, and it's right there. So strange.

[partly_warmer]

EchoKitty, getting back to the OP, there isn't any logical thing that would convince a believer at all. Converting is a spiritual matter, not an emotional or intellectual one. Losing faith is also a spiritual process.

Those who can be unconverted by argument alone never had full insight. Not being entirely sure whether your conversion is based on faith, or on habit and social convenience is one of the great fears religious people secretly have. Many people *want* to be converted so badly, they convince themselves they have been, before they've actually come to a solid, complete spiritual insight. It's a well-meaning form of self-deception, but eventually it comes undone. For those people, "proofs" that they were wrong rest with the unresolved issues they had while looking for faith, that they've suppressed.

Arguing with a religious person may help address unresolved issues they still have, that keep them from a complete spiritual decision. For them, your very question is a help.

[Genseric]

I have to say my experience almost completely parallels MrO's.

Everyone here should be thankful. I wrote a very long post about how I grew up religious and gradually gave up bits and peices until nothing remained. The board ate it. You have been saved from reading another of my incoherent, tedious rambling diatribes. Maybe there is a God after all?

[Apos]

---Just saw your note while previewing this post. What appears consistent is that I don't understand your question (again). Could you elaborate?---

That is: no matter what happens, no matter what state of the world exists, it is still easy to rationalize that it is just all part of a mysterious god's will. A feeling of prescence is rather simple to convince oneself of feeling, seeing as it onyl needs to mirror ones own feeling of existence.
That makes the hypothesis sort of worthless really: any hypothesis that makes no difference could equally be proferred, and equally defendable.

So what? Unfalsifiable hypothesises are not just boring: they're meaningless. If god's existence makes no difference to any state of the world, what sort of existence could it possibly be?

[Apos]

I think we can safely do away with the "conversion feeling" as any sort of evidence for or against the existence of god. Obviously, everyone feels self-righteous, peaceful, an unthreatened when they either feel finally assured and safe in their belief, or when they give up on old beliefs they feel held them back. Big deal. We need to stop being so overly impressed with our own feelings if we are going to clearly apprehend the world around us.

[dalovindj]

Give us a thousand years. Humans are problem solvers . . . .

[partly_warmer]

Apos said: "I think we can safely do away with the "conversion feeling" as any sort of evidence for or against the existence of god. Obviously, everyone feels self-righteous, peaceful, an unthreatened when they either feel finally assured and safe in their belief, or when they give up on old beliefs they feel held them back."

This was one of the arguments I used to repeat most often in my teens as an agnostic. But I'm not talking about a sense of well-being, and I wasn't any more or less self-righteous before conversion. I'm a baby of the nuclear era, and I always feel somewhat threatened.

What I was talking about was philosophical, social and moral problems about which I couldn't arrive at any complete, or non-contradictory conclusion. As a teen, I used to enjoy posing Christians and Jews extremely difficult moral problems that they couldn't answer. It only occured to me after some years that I'd like to be able to answer my own questions.

I didn't have a "conversion" in the sense of suddenly believing. I began to accept elements of faith, and discovered I was thinking better, more critically, not more poorly.

If I hoped to convert someone, and I was called to, and I had their time, I could suggest ways someone who was not faithful could see the state of mind of the faithful more clearly. But I could not *reason* with someone to convince them to believe. That's a spiritual decision. Equally, following the OP, there's no way to *reason* with someone to talk them out of genuine faith.

[shagadelicmysteryman]

Originally posted by dreamer
Can you give me some examples (obviously hypothetical) of what you think could bring doubt, test our faith etc? Obviously there is evolution and scientific theory, but what circumstances would you envision happening to a believer in order for them to change their faith?

Bible Prophecies gone horridly wrong. In other words, I think that bible prophecies that don't come true, or come true to the exact opposite deffinition of what they should. But that's IMHO.

[Apos]

----But I'm not talking about a sense of well-being, and I wasn't any more or less self-righteous before conversion.---

Goodness: you were this selfrighteous even THEN?

---I began to accept elements of faith, and discovered I was thinking better, more critically, not more poorly.---

This is a matter of your opinion, which sort of goes to my point. That you feel more content, more critical, more astute, is neither here nor there from the perspective of anyone else. Perhaps you think that's unfair, but then, I hold the same for those smug in their unbelief.

But that a particular faithfulness requires a special "insight," a special technique, a special state of mind, only suggests more solidly that it is a state of learning to feel convinced and in a relationship with faith, not an actual state of knowledge. And again, once there, is otherwise consistent with absolutely any state of reality.

[partly_warmer]

Apos, thanks for getting my joke, and my point. I'm not necessarily a better person, or a vastly changed person because of a faith decision.

Once I started being faithful, empirical, demonstrable problems that I hadn't been able to figure out became clear. These weren't touchy-feely, moral-twinge problems, but things as straightforward as physics homework.

Before converting, I tried one of the "special technique" approaches to religious enlightment, and was alarmed when the spokespeople for this international movement admitted that artists complained they were less creative after using the technique. This seemed wrong, I quit. Faith is not a matter of technique, but I didn't know that at the time.

Religious people are seeking insights because they're moments of personal advancement. Unfortunately, this is often presented to the public at large as some sort of challenge, or merit badge system. Logically, this is a poor way to present the case: Offer a highly rational person an opportunity to acquire something they don't believe in?

The debates that religious and non-religious people alike enjoy getting involved with are usually about the implications of faith, not about faith itself. So, returning once more to the OP, reason cannot be used to convert, or unconvert someone.

[Invisible Chimp]

I used to believe. Then I asked myself, Why am I Christian? Why not Muslim? Jewish? Hindu? Buddhist? Had I just adopted Christianity because it was the religion that was nearest to me? I supposed if I had been born in some other country where Christianity had not been the dominant religion, I would have adopted that area's religion. I wanted to prove to myself that Christianity was the one true religion and not just something I had picked up because it was nearby, what I grew up around.

I accepted that God existed. I wanted to make sure I had the one true religion because I knew at least Christianity taught that you had to worship their way or you'd go to hell. I just wondered whether Christianity was the correct way to worship him. I couldn't find any evidence that Christianity had some superior hold on the truth over any other religions. And I couldn't find any other religion that had a monopoly on the truth either. Why not? I figured one of the religions had to have gotten it right. But none of them seemed to have any proof that they were the one true religion, that they were the correct way to God. It was all hearsay.

I eventually decided that the reason one religion didn't seem to have a monopoly on the truth, was because maybe God wasn't the truth. Maybe God didn't exist. That scared me, but eventually I accepted it might be right. I found other more logical reasons not to believe. That cemented it.

Incidentally, I grew up in a secular family. My father was a lapsed Catholic and my mother was never very religious at all. I discovered Christianity through a babysitter. I became an agnostic by the time I was a senior in HS, so I wasn't very old when I was Christian, nor when I gave it up. I rarely attended church, even when I considered myself relgious, though I did attend Summer Bible Camp every summer for a few summers and I read my Bible a lot and prayed constantly. My brother is now a fundie and my dad has re-discovered Christianity, but not Catholicism. I was more serene when I was religious; there is a lot more uncertainty without God in my life. But I would rather not believe now, than take something on blind faith.

[DSeid]

JRDelerious and keeperO have got it right.

The question implies that religious faith is open to scientific methodology, but it is not. It is not a falsifiable concept, almost by definition. Within a religious mindset, God is logicaly proven because it is axiomatically true; it is the basic postulate of the system from which all else follows. Which isn't to say that some particular God-concept isn't falsifiable ... say, some specific Biblical literalism of historical events ... but the general concept of God implies a power beyond our understanding. How can I test something that I define as incomprehensible to me? The model of religious faith is that belief which is held despite what seems to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is fundamentally different than "faith" in scientific axioms.

[EchoKitty]

MrO, your response was very eloquent. Thanks.

Edlyn said, "In fact, within the past two weeks our family has learned that two of our daughters are expecting a child. One child is due within days of my dad's birthday (he crossed over 11 weeks after Dawson) and the other child is due on Dawson's birthday. (Note to Apos: No, both daughters were not trying to become pregnant and no they did not schedule their ovulation.)"

So what? That happens to non-believers all the time! ALL the time! Are you suggesting that these two new babies are going to replace the souls of your two lost loved ones?

In fact, my mom and one of her close girlfriends were pregnant with their first children at the same time. They were due at the same time. My mom had my brother, and time passed and she hadn't heard from her girlfriend (they had promised to call each other and compare notes). Well, it turned out her friend's child was a Down's Syndrome baby and the mother was too freaked out to even call. Where was god during THAT "blessed" event? And how do you know what the future brings for the two new babies in your family (best wishes to all, by the way)?

[smiling bandit]

Why can't God just zap all the bad people in the world, ya know?

Well, that would probably include everyone, so I'm not sure this is an answer.

However, Bob th alien would demonstrate only that he is a good liar now. He was not in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

Next up, there sint' anything that could cause me to not believe. I do. I can lie about it, but I cannot not believe. I can even lie to myself, and try to convince myself I do not believe, but I still believe. I tried being agnostic. I tried being atheist. There was even a week where I was a Marxist (which I realized after about 24 hours was a realy stupid idea, bt i'm stubborn as a mule and mean as a badger). But here I am.

Well, its obvious God made me to be a believer, so if he wasnt sme to be a believer that much, who am I to argue?