# Why do people still believe in God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228 "2005-12-19T00:51:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/201 "2005-12-27T04:30:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think we just disagree that this is something that can reasonably be called faith here. I certainly agree that this is the way people act. Fair enough. I believe I haven’t explained it well. It is a new concept for me that I’m trying to articulate. It will probably come up again. > [@](#): > > Because when belief is tentative, it dies not require such a reworking of the internal thought processes to change it. I understand “this is what I believe so far, based on current information” and being open to new developments. Some people have a real hard time letting go of certain beliuefs and traditions, even in the face of evidence. You will see that in examples other than religion. Perhaps it’s denial and wanting to protect an image you’re comfortable with. Someone who has been a Republican for may years may find it very hard to accept that the party no longer represents his beliefs and it’s time to move on. Or our republican Senator who supported the war only to confess two years later that he was wrong. It’s the same internal mechanism as religious faith IMHO. > [@](#): > > Faith can be considered the gap between belief and the evidence for the belief. If there is 99.99% chance that what we experience is reality, based on our experience, then there is little faith involved acting as if it was. If, on the other hand, your only evidence of god is third hand, there is a lot more faith in believing in god. Moses needed little faith, if the story were true. We all make certain decisions based on what we accept as physical truths and facts. Electricity. The combustion engine. medicine we take etc etc. Not much faith there. We also make decisions on much less tangible things. We make decsiosns that certain behavior will have positive outcomes more often than not. We make those decisions based on our own subjective ecperience which is singularly our own. We have a form of faith in that subjective experience, until some new experience alters our view. It’s that internal mechanism that I see as the same thing in atheists and theists. Just a theory 🙂 > [@](#): > > However if you have to make a choice between two actions, and choose the one most probable, are you acting on faith? I don’t think so. You’d change your choice in a second if the odds change. Most probable to what? Sometimes the choice is , Do I do what is expedient in the moment and serve the immediate future or do I live according to a principle I believe in and have faith that in the unforseeable future it will turn out to be the best course of action, even though I see problems in the near future. > [@](#): > > If one believes there is significant evidence for spiritual things, I’m not sure I’d consider believing in them faith. A guy being hoodwinked by a medium might think he was being very rational. A guy who has had an experience he cannot explain except supernaturally might not be working on faith either. So I think it is very personal. Interesting way of putting it. Certainly a big part of the formula is what we \*want \* to believe is true. _That_ it most definatly very personal. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/202 "2005-12-27T06:40:42Z")
> [@Floyd Remora](#): > > When do you accept any given fact as proven? You could argue that the established laws of thermodynamics are wrong because it’s actually God doing something magical. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with having faith, it just doesn’t produce facts in the way that science does. John Maynard Keynes’ first book suggested that though we can never know anything for certain, facts and knowledge occur when the probability (loosely defined) of something being correct approaches 100%. The Laws of Thermodynamics qualify, but so did Newton’s Laws, and they turned out to be incorrect. But this isn’t faith. This is accepting something as true because nothing better has come along despite many opportunities, as opposed to faith which is accepting something as true even though (or because of?) something better **has** come along. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2005, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/203 "2005-12-27T06:55:38Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Fair enough. I believe I haven’t explained it well. It is a new concept for me that I’m trying to articulate. It will probably come up again. I think you explained it fine. I just don’t buy this is a useful definition of faith to use while discussing religion. But that’s personal preference. > [@](#): > > I understand “this is what I believe so far, based on current information” and being open to new developments. Some people have a real hard time letting go of certain beliuefs and traditions, even in the face of evidence. You will see that in examples other than religion. Perhaps it’s denial and wanting to protect an image you’re comfortable with. Definitely. It’s called cognitive dissonance, I believe. Perhaps the distinction is the explanation used by this sort of person. The scientist defending a crumbling position doubts experimental results, interprets other results in odd ways, and sometimes resorts to saying “I’m not convinced.” A religious person believing by faith doesn’t do this, but simply says that they believe. This is not acceptable in science, which is why creationists come up with increasingly farfetched and loony explanations for the facts that clearly show the age of the earth and the evidence for evolution. If they stayed in church, they could just say they believed in Genesis by faith, and no one would care. > [@](#): > > Most probable to what? Sometimes the choice is , Do I do what is expedient in the moment and serve the immediate future or do I live according to a principle I believe in and have faith that in the unforseeable future it will turn out to be the best course of action, even though I see problems in the near future. More probable in leading to a desired result, which may include the calculations you mention. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/204 "2005-12-29T21:33:48Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > John Maynard Keynes’ first book suggested that though we can never know anything for certain, facts and knowledge occur when the probability (loosely defined) of something being correct approaches 100%. But how do we know with sufficient certainty that something has approached the designated mark? If we can know nothing for certain, then what is the point in establishing hash tables that may or may not be right? Keynes is like a man who begins a sentence with, “I have no idea what I’m saying…” and continues to speak. > [@](#): > > The Laws of Thermodynamics qualify, but so did Newton’s Laws, and they turned out to be incorrect. Newton’s laws are correct. Thankfully. It’s just that they apply to a specific reference frame (an inertial frame). > [@](#): > > But this isn’t faith. This is accepting something as true because nothing better has come along despite many opportunities, as opposed to faith which is accepting something as true even though (or because of?) something better **has** come along. I don’t think that’s faith either. Faith is not something that is produced by grunting and squinting until a trust materializes out of thin air. Faith is reliance upon the trustworthiness of experience. I believe precisely because the very best came along. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/205 "2005-12-29T22:49:12Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But how do we know with sufficient certainty that something has approached the designated mark? If we can know nothing for certain, then what is the point in establishing hash tables that may or may not be right? Keynes is like a man who begins a sentence with, “I have no idea what I’m saying…” and continues to speak. That is why I said that probability in this case was loosely defined. Closeness to certainly increases with the number of successful experiments (and thus the number of opportunities for something to be falsified where it was not.) The exact value is unknown, and no one is claiming it can be known. But certainly you agree that 100 successful experiments give more confidence than one? > [@](#): > > Newton’s laws are correct. Thankfully. It’s just that they apply to a specific reference frame (an inertial frame). Not true. There is always a small relativistic component, even at “normal” speeds, but it is too small to measure. It is not like relativity all of a sudden cuts in at a certain speed - it just becomes significant at high speeds. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that’s faith either. Faith is not something that is produced by grunting and squinting until a trust materializes out of thin air. Faith is reliance upon the trustworthiness of experience. I believe precisely because the very best came along. It was you (and Poly) who I was thinking of when I wrote > [@Voyager](#): > > A guy who has had an experience he cannot explain except supernaturally might not be working on faith either. Perhaps there is a faith component in considering this experience to map into reality, but unlike most believers you actually experienced something. ---
**Author:** ![wonderlust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonderlust/32/7237_2.png) [@wonderlust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderlust)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/206 "2005-12-29T23:37:59Z")
I came across this yesterday and thought it might be of interest here. [Science Fiction Writer John C. Wright Becomes A Christian](http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_thread/thread/26abad03d3f140f2/69f14f19ec994dec) It surprised me for two reasons: He has been characterized as an objectivist; and the posters following his text didn’t know who he was. Would you be convinced by a direct experience? I’m not sure, for myself. ---
**Author:** ![handeh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9f8e36/32.png) [@handeh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handeh)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/207 "2005-12-30T02:14:41Z")
The Big Bang is a theory, it has nothing to do with the definition of Universe. And let me tell you all, things are far more complex than just “the Universe started with an explosion”. ---
**Author:** ![handeh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9f8e36/32.png) [@handeh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handeh)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/208 "2005-12-30T02:21:20Z")
> [@](#): > > “The universe began with the Big Bang” is an equivalent sentence to “The ultra-compressed configuration called the Big Bang was how the universe was for all time before t=0.” You don’t know that. If it was as simple as “ultra-compressed configuration”, they why would it “explode”? The fact is that even today we don’t know if there was an “ultra-compressed configuration”. We usually say there was because we are assuming that if the Universe if expanding today, then if we admit that it has always been expanding we will go back to a single point in space. And it’s far from obvious that it works like that. And in fact that are loads and loads of theories that try to explain what we see nowadays in the Universe, the Big Bang theory being the one with less holes in it. So I just wanted to remember people to not just throw “Big Bang” as if it is an absolute truth. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/209 "2005-12-30T02:48:17Z")
> [@brightpenny](#): > > I came across this yesterday and thought it might be of interest here. > > [Science Fiction Writer John C. Wright Becomes A Christian](http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_thread/thread/26abad03d3f140f2/69f14f19ec994dec) > > It surprised me for two reasons: He has been characterized as an objectivist; and the posters following his text didn’t know who he was. > > Would you be convinced by a direct experience? I’m not sure, for myself. Thanks for the link. It’s a good article, very articulate. I like how he sees the circular reasoning in his atheist conclusions. His prayer is pretty funny as well as his telling of his heart attack. From my view I enjoyed how he appreciated the obvious link between the mystic portions of east and west, pagan and Christian. I’ve had similar experiences and drawn similar conclusions. I think this article deserves its own thread. What do you think? ---
**Author:** ![wonderlust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonderlust/32/7237_2.png) [@wonderlust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonderlust)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/210 "2005-12-30T02:52:01Z")
Sure, which Forum, though? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/211 "2005-12-30T03:02:20Z")
> [@brightpenny](#): > > Sure, which Forum, though? right here in GD. I would invite specific comments about his thoughts on the circular reasoning of atheism, and the part where he says hallucination and dreams can’t explain the miricles and prayers answered he’s experienced. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/212 "2005-12-30T06:51:34Z")
> [@handeh](#): > > The Big Bang is a theory, it has nothing to do with the definition of Universe. > > And let me tell you all, things are far more complex than just “the Universe started with an explosion”. Yes it is a theory, but with a great deal of predictive power. If the beginning of the universe is part of its definition, then the Big Bang (with associated inflation theories, or course) has quite a bit to do with it. And explosion has very little to do with anything - it was not an explosion in any sense. ---
**Author:** ![swissmtndog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@swissmtndog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swissmtndog)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/213 "2005-12-30T07:20:00Z")
I don’t believe in God, but… I see great positives of having faith…generally gives some people a reason to get up in the morning and do good things for their fellow man. That answers the OP’s question for me. A lot of the negatives about what religeous beliefs may have indirectly caused, IMO, tells me much more about the people who believe are capable of than about whether their belief can be proved or not. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/214 "2005-12-30T09:12:51Z")
> [@swissmtndog](#): > > I don’t believe in God, but… > > I see great positives of having faith…generally gives some people a reason to get up in the morning and do good things for their fellow man. It also motivates many people to do terrrible things to their fellow man. > [@](#): > > A lot of the negatives about what religeous beliefs may have indirectly caused, IMO, tells me much more about the people who believe are capable of than about whether their belief can be proved or not. Well, can you demonstrate that the religious underpinnings of their evil actions are any less true than those of people who do good? Do humans get to decide which words of an unknowable god are right and good, and which are wrong and mistaken and evil? How do we decide? By human morals? Once you believe that there is a god who can direct your actions, anything is permissible so long as god commands it. If one truly believes god is directing them, no human law or ethic means anything. Fred Phelps may be as correct as Mother Teresa - only god knows for sure, and he’s not talking. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/215 "2005-12-30T11:23:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It also motivates many people to do terrrible things to their fellow man. Perhaps it is not the motivation but only a smoke screen to cover their true motives from others and themselves. > [@](#): > > Well, can you demonstrate that the religious underpinnings of their evil actions are any less true than those of people who do good? Do humans get to decide which words of an unknowable god are right and good, and which are wrong and mistaken and evil? How do we decide? By human morals? Humans interpret what they percieve to be the words of God through the filter of their own emotional needs and desires. In that sense they do decide which words are good and which are evil. > [@](#): > > Once you believe that there is a god who can direct your actions, anything is permissible so long as god commands it. If one truly believes god is directing them, no human law or ethic means anything. Fred Phelps may be as correct as Mother Teresa - only god knows for sure, and he’s not talking. The true zealots say he is. Other wise how would they know his commands? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/216 "2005-12-30T14:42:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > That is why I said that probability in this case was loosely defined. Closeness to certainly increases with the number of successful experiments (and thus the number of opportunities for something to be falsified where it was not.) The exact value is unknown, and no one is claiming it can be known. But certainly you agree that 100 successful experiments give more confidence than one? Well, I don’t know, not if Keynes is right. How will you know what is and isn’t a success — let alone what a hundred of them are? I mean, if Keynes is right, then isn’t it the case that we can’t know? We can’t even know whether we agree with each other. > [@](#): > > Not true. There is always a small relativistic component, even at “normal” speeds, but it is too small to measure. It is not like relativity all of a sudden cuts in at a certain speed - it just becomes significant at high speeds. Well, that’s true, but an inertial frame is speed zero, which is the frame for which Newton’s laws are accurate. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/217 "2005-12-30T15:20:28Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > … as opposed to faith which is accepting something as true even though (or because of?) something better **has** come along. Nonsense. That’s a twisted distortion of what faith is. ---
**Author:** ![handeh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9f8e36/32.png) [@handeh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handeh)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/218 "2005-12-30T15:48:58Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Yes it is a theory, but with a great deal of predictive power. Such as? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/219 "2005-12-30T15:59:38Z")
> [@handeh](#): > > Such as? The microwave background. The abundance of various elements. The fact that the universe appears to be expanding. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2005, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228/220 "2005-12-30T16:34:37Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > The microwave background. The abundance of various elements. The fact that the universe appears to be expanding. And more recently confirmed, the universal distribution of neutrinos. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-people-still-believe-in-god/336228.md?page=12)