# Why do religious people try to prove God exists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 5, 2018, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895 "2018-04-05T21:23:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2018, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/21 "2018-04-05T23:30:45Z")
“Truth” is a subjective feeling, _before_ it ever was a philosophical principle. The philosophical notion was built up around the internal feeling. The personal intuition that people have that a certain statement is either “correct” or “incorrect” came first, and in our minds still comes first today. All the philosophical wrangling in history came about because of our ever-conflicting personal intuitions about what things might be true or not. Only when intuitions about truth conflict do we reach for logical argument. But logical argument remains psychologically secondary. The _feeling_ of truth comes first. This is easier to see with vivid examples. We can come up with a crazy hypothetical, and our minds will IMMEDIATELY render a verdict about whether that idea is true or not, far before any deeper mental struggle to offer up post hoc “reasons” (rationalizations) why the determination was made. Example: Was the universe created [last Thursday](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis)? Including all of our memories of before last Thursday, which are false memories since they were also simultaneously created with the rest of the universe last Thursday? The emotional reaction is IMMEDIATE: _there’s no fuckin way that’s true_. But it’s only after that initial reaction that people struggle with the reason why it’s false. A common first response to the idea is “Falsifiability!” But this is usually a dead end, as far as determining truth or falsehood, because falsifiability is merely a reason why a statement is “scientific” or not (according to a particular definition of “science”). But potentially, a statement can be both non-scientific but still true. The actual sophisticated answer is, of course, the razor. But then the question becomes: how do we actually define “simplicity”? Simplicity itself can be defined logically (mathematically), but it can also be defined intuitively (psychologically): an idea is to be preferred, as a simpler explanation that fits the available facts, if it is intuitively easier to grasp. This intuitive version of the razor will rule out Last Thursday as the beginning of our universe. Waaaaay too complex and unintuitive. But it might also rule in some notion of “god”, for people who perceive the notion of god – however ill-defined – as psychologically elegant and “simple”. And this finally explains the puzzle. People don’t accept “science” as true because they’re intimately familiar with the procedures and philosophy of science. _No._ Even many scientists are extremely hazy on the epistemological principles on which mathematical statistics is built. People run regressions _only because_ they need to run regressions to get published. **The vast majority of people who run regressions do not understand the philosophical principles of what they are doing.** Statistics isn’t at core math. It’s at core epistemology, dressed up in mathematical clothing so it can be run on a machine. People who say “I have faith” are essentially saying “I am intellectually sophisticated enough to realize that the means by which I determine something to be true are internal to me – the notion of Truth as an _internal feeling_ – while simultaneously realizing that this does not work for scientific purposes as human history has shown.” I used to roll my eyes at that sort of “I have faith” statement, but that’s actually an extremely deep thought when you get down to it. It’s evidence of a deep internal struggle between competing notions of epistemology. Even if the struggle isn’t happening on an explicit level, it still exists. That’s worth something. Frankly, most people can’t manage that. Most religious people, too. They go with “Truth” as an internal feeling, without wanting to admit that to themselves. They go by “science” as something “true”, too, but also purely by feeling because they recognize that “science” has attained deep significance and social status in our society because of its past successes. “Science is true” can be a matter of pure human intuition, a matter of purely illogical human feeling, without any knowledge whatever of logical reasoning or the history of science. Just more feeling out what’s true. And their primitive feelings iron out all of those differences: what they _feel_ to be true must obviously also be “scientifically” demonstrated to be true. After all, if “science” is actually true, it can’t go against their true internal feelings, can it? Therefore “science” must necessarily back up what they already feel to be true. Therefore: we can “prove the Bible”. And so their version of science becomes a cargo cult. They ape the superficial exterior, because they believe (by feeling! by intuition!) that they are faithfully following the Ritual of Scientific Truth. There’s no contradiction in their minds because “Truth” for them has always been, and will continue to be, nothing but a psychological feeling that they experience when they encounter certain statements. They don’t perceive a difference between “faith” and “science” because they don’t even know what the principles of science are. It’s worth remembering that some of the highest principles of epistemology were only properly formalized as late as the 20th century. In a very real sense, these ideas are babies. They’re not easy, either, and so for many people, the notion of “truth” remains fairly primitive. When the notion of “truth” doesn’t get past the feeling stage – which, let’s be frank, is the case for most human beings – then people believing they can “prove the Bible” is exactly the sort of thing that will just naturally and inevitably happen. One source of truth is not going to contradict another source of truth. This is also, historically, why so many medieval scholastics earnestly wanted to “prove” the existence of god with their personal logical system. They weren’t trying to build up evidence for god with this logical “proof”. God was already established. They were trying to build up evidence _for their personal logical system_ by showing that their system had successfully proven something that everybody already knew was true. Historian [Ada Palmer](https://www.exurbe.com/?p=3084) makes this point, which was a jump start for me on much of the rest of these thoughts. And in fact, Palmer goes on to point out the idea of knowing God _only_ by faith and not from any sort of logical proof is itself sort of a new idea. Faith-based religion is new. It is a _response_ to the epistemological problems with religion that the scientific enterprise has dug up over the centuries. The more classical response was always: “There are no problems here! Every method of discovering Truth will back up every other method!” And this classical response is essentially what the prove-the-Bible folks are trying to preserve. They believe – they _feel to be true_ – that all methods will back each other up. And that belief strongly mimics the medieval way of thinking about things. (Although it’s worth noting that real medieval theologians were far too smart to believe that everything in the Bible was to be taken literally.) Christian Fundamentalism is very modern, very 19th century, very post-Darwin, very ignorant. Like Christian Fundamentalism, faith-based belief is a response to scientific advance. But it’s the more sophisticated response, because it acknowledges – at least implicitly – the epistemological tension that science has uncovered. The prove-the-Bible folks simply aren’t on that level. They’re still operating on a nearly pure “the truth is what I feel” level (no matter how much they might deny that). If the Bible is true (and it is! they know it!) then that truth can be proven by multiple methods. Including by “science”. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2018, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/22 "2018-04-05T23:31:45Z")
The reason is because they feel they received proof by God, yet what they received is knowing God. Common mistake, please forgive them, God would. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2018, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/23 "2018-04-05T23:40:23Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Sure. But that’s different. That explains pilgrimages to the holy land, or trips to places where biblical events occurred. It doesn’t explain people who believe that, for instance, manna from heaven was carbohydrates from Venus’s atmosphere when it passed close to Earth after being ejected from Jupiter. > > I guess another possibility I hadn’t thought of is that some of them may in fact be doubters, and are searching for enough of a scientific explanation to quell their internal doubts and allow them to re-discover their faith. It makes absolute sense to doubt things that you can prove didn’t happen, so you can’t exactly hold that against them. Speculating about esoteric sources for manna seems pretty out there, though. Sounds almost like fanboyism - sort of like speculating as to why kryptonite hurts Superman. The story works the same whether or not you have an explanation for it, but having an explanation is cool. And useful for appealing to the critical. ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2018, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/24 "2018-04-05T23:44:10Z")
Attempting to prove the existence of god/gods scientifically is relatively new sauce, however trying to prove the existence of god/gods philosophically is old sauce. See Thomas Aquinas and, in rebuttal\* Immanual Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Faith is good, but even in the New Testament, Paul or Peter claimed evidence existed in Creation 🙂 \*Before I am quite properly corrected, I did try reading Kant’s Critique and failed, coining the phrase, “I can’t I. Kant.” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/25 "2018-04-05T23:57:07Z")
> [@Arkcon](#): > > I think it started in Ancient times. Or at least, started for Christianity, in Paul’s time. Similarly for all other ancient religious traditions, AFAIK. Trying to prove the existence of deities empirically or logically is not a recent development. If you are trying to persuade somebody who doesn’t already share your belief systems, you need to start from some epistemological common ground. ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/26 "2018-04-06T00:09:40Z")
> [@FordPrefect](#): > > Attempting to prove the existence of god/gods scientifically is relatively new sauce, however trying to prove the existence of god/gods philosophically is old sauce. See Thomas Aquinas and, in rebuttal\* Immanual Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Faith is good, but even in the New Testament, Paul or Peter claimed evidence existed in Creation 🙂 > > \*Before I am quite properly corrected, I did try reading Kant’s Critique and failed, coining the phrase, “I can’t I. Kant.” I was hoping some one with your name would have said something like “proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing. But the babelfish proves god exists, therefore he doesn’t.” ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/27 "2018-04-06T00:47:02Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The title pretty much says it all. One of the key aspects of religion is that it requires FAITH. Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence or proof. > > So why is it that so many devout people are constantly trying to use science to ‘prove’ that God exists? , , , Possibly because they don’t share your definition of “faith”? It’s a definition commonly offered in this context, by those critiquing religious faith, but that very fact should suggest a degree of critical scrutiny of the definition. The Oxford English Dictionary offers a number of definitions of “faith”; “belief without evidence” isn’t any of them. It seems to me that if you’re going to critique the faith of religious believers you have to start by asking the believers to explain their faith, rather than atheistsplaining it for them, and then critiquing the straw man you have created. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/28 "2018-04-06T01:07:26Z")
> [@perryb](#): > > …Why are you asking dumb questions on a message board? If you love sports then I’ll bet youd like to find others to talk to about sports. People who like God just want to talk about what they love as well. deal with it Welcome to the Straight Dope. Pease familiarize yourself with the rules of the board and of the forums in particular. We encourage healthy and vigorous debate but require that posters remain civil. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/29 "2018-04-06T01:25:20Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > The Oxford English Dictionary offers a number of definitions of “faith”; “belief without evidence” isn’t any of them. > > It seems to me that if you’re going to critique the faith of religious believers you have to start by asking the believers to explain their faith, rather than atheistsplaining it for them, and then critiquing the straw man you have created. Must be a different Oxford English dictionary. The one I’m looking at says: > [@Oxford English Dictionary](#): > > Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Unless you are trying to nitpick ‘belief wihthout evidence’ vs ‘belief without proof’, I gave a pretty standard definition for faith in this context. The other definition sometimes equates faith with trust, as in ‘I have faith that my mom will help out if needed’, but that’s colloquial because trust usually implies some underlying justification. And I wasn’t ‘athiestSplaining’ - not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’m very tired of this idea that arguments can be shut down iust because they didn’t come from a member of a preferred group. Screw that. But if you must know, I grew up in a devout community of Mennonite Christians, and was a true believer myself in my childhood. I’ve maintained close connections to many of them, and have nothing at all bad to say about any of them. My grandparents were devout Christians, and two of the best people I’ve known. So I’m not coming from a place of malice here. See, the effect science had on me when I started learning about it was to essentially drive a wedge between my faith and my rationality. It didn’t take long for me to stop believing, and I was agnostic by the time I was 12 years old. But I still very much remember what it was like to truly believe. Part of the reason for my question was to try to understand that mindset and ability to straddle both worlds, because I couldn’t do it. Does it still sound like a straw man argument to you? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/30 "2018-04-06T01:28:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > It makes absolute sense to doubt things that you can prove didn’t happen, so you can’t exactly hold that against them. > > Speculating about esoteric sources for manna seems pretty out there, though. Sounds almost like fanboyism - sort of like speculating as to why kryptonite hurts Superman. The story works the same whether or not you have an explanation for it, but having an explanation is cool. And useful for appealing to the critical. You may be surprised (and maybe horrified) to find out that this is part of the actual thesis of Immanuel Velikovsky’s “Worlds in Collision”, which was a hugely popular book for a time. I still remember Carl Sagan’s awesome takedown of that claptrap. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/31 "2018-04-06T01:32:18Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > “Truth” is a subjective feeling, _before_ it ever was a philosophical principle. > … (clipped for brevity) That was an outstanding response with lots to chew on. Thanks very much. I’ll follow your link and read more before commenting. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/32 "2018-04-06T01:49:27Z")
> [@perryb](#): > > who ever tried to prove to you God"s existance through science. Answer: nobody… Thanks. Except maybe a television program which is a spin from the getgo to make you disbelieve God all subliminally. If -you got a problem- with those who love God then as it says, -you got a problem- **And ask yourself why are you concerning yourself with what others are doing?** Why are you asking dumb questions on a message board? If you love sports then I’ll bet youd like to find others to talk to about sports. People who like God just want to talk about what they love as well. deal with it Bolding mine. (cough) abortion (cough) LGBTQ rights (cough) marijuana legalization (cough) every church I’ve spent a significant enough amount of time in to get to know the people somewhat, and there have been a number of them… Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind… ---
**Author:** ![FordPrefect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e99b99/32.png) [@FordPrefect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FordPrefect)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/33 "2018-04-06T02:23:58Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > I was hoping some one with your name would have said something like “proof denies faith and without faith God is nothing. But the babelfish proves god exists, therefore he doesn’t.” That would have suited my cynical atheism far more than the post I wrote. Can I get a redo? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/34 "2018-04-06T02:34:30Z")
> [@FordPrefect](#): > > That would have suited my cynical atheism far more than the post I wrote. > > Can I get a redo? sure - come back in 3 days. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/35 "2018-04-06T02:48:03Z")
> [@perryb](#): > > it is fact that egypt had approximately 1 million jewish slaves Aside from everything else, this is wrong. The current mainstream view is that Exodus never happened, and is simply a founding myth like many others. In summary: > [@](#): > > The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel.[27] There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation for the entire 2nd millennium BCE, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.[28] Such elements as could be fitted into the 2nd millennium could equally belong to the 1st, and are consistent with a 1st millennium BCE writer trying to set an old story in Egypt.[29] So while a few scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier, continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the story, arguing that the Egyptian records have been lost or suppressed or that the fleeing Israelites left no archaeological trace or that the large numbers are mistranslated, the majority have abandoned the investigation as “a fruitless pursuit”.[30][31] > **[The Exodus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus)** > > The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Yəṣīʾat Mīṣrayīm: lit. 'Departure from Egypt'\[a\]) is the founding myth\[b\] of the Israelites whose narrative is spread over four of the five books of the Pentateuch (specifically, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). > The consensus of modern scholars is that the Pentateuch does not give an accurate account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE ... So by all means continue to post about how you can prove the Bible, subject to moderator notes on your tone, of course. But don’t try to think you can slip stuff by us. You’re nowhere near that original. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/36 "2018-04-06T03:28:38Z")
> [@perryb](#): > > also as for proof of The parting of the red sea or the flood. listen here-- it is fact that egypt had approximately 1 million jewish slaves that also is historical fact that up and recollonized directly accross the red sea all at once. as for the parting of the sea, well 1million ppl crossed through it in front of many many egyptians who not one has disclaimed the parting of the sea yet all did speak of it in those days. Now A earthquake 10 ft deep can cause a tsunami that will wipe out an entire ocean front city, imagine what a earthquake the size of the grand canyon can do. And did. prove that it didnt would be a neat trick. Your lack of capitals and use of “a” instead of “an” before a noun that begins with a vowel makes you appear less intelligent and therefore less persuasive. Proofread carefully. Also, the bottom of the sea would be too mucky to be able to walk across without getting stuck. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/37 "2018-04-06T05:04:31Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I’m not religious and never have been (despite being raised in it) so I can only speculate as to the motives of the religious. However there’s one possible reason that seems pretty obvious. > > Religions, notably christianity, make loads of claims about reality. Their holy book is about 40% history book, making claims about notable events that took place in the physical world. And if those notable events did _not_ occur, then their religion is false. (Or has false details, but if you’re into things like an inerrant bible the stakes start out really high.) Yes. The obvious false historical details are fatal to the biblical inerrancy claim, so anyone wishing to claim inerrancy finds ways to obfuscate or deny or ignore facts. Anyone claiming that the bible is important but flawed, doesn’t have that problem. ---
**Author:** ![Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/regallag_the_axe/32/445_2.png) [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Regallag_The_Axe)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/38 "2018-04-06T05:09:22Z")
Something that bears mentioning here is that a lot of the stories in the Old Testament was never meant to be taken literally. They were meant to be discussed and debated so man could better know God’s will, or commandments, or grand design, or whatever. To the ancient Hebrews it was irrelevant whether the events described actually took place or not. What was important was the message, the truth, that God had given to the prophet. The New Testament, on the other hand, is about God coming to Earth, doing a bunch of miracles, laying down the _real_ truth, and getting killed.\* That stuff can all be taken literally because, come on, it’s the big man himself, he can do anything, and you weren’t there, were you? Most of the New Testament miracles were not the sort of thing that would leave archaeological evidence and Christians can believe that they really happened without being proven wrong. Since the Old and New Testaments are bundled together in one convenient volume, it’s not surprising that some Christians would think, “If one is true, so must be the other.” From there it’s not much of a leap to go searching for evidence. \*Yes, I know it’s a bit more complicated than that, read the book if you want the details. > [@kanicbird](#): > > The reason is because they feel they received proof by God, yet what they received is knowing God. Common mistake, please forgive them, God would. “To err is human, to forgive is divine,” but I’m an atheist, so fuck 'em. Just kidding; I with 'em all the happiness in the world (even if they’re wrong). ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2018, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/39 "2018-04-06T05:40:48Z")
> [@Regallag\_The\_Axe](#): > > Something that bears mentioning here is that a lot of the stories in the Old Testament was never meant to be taken literally. They were meant to be discussed and debated so man could better know God’s will, or commandments, or grand design, or whatever. To the ancient Hebrews it was irrelevant whether the events described actually took place or not. What was important was the message, the truth, that God had given to the prophet. That seems to still be a Jewish thing. Knew a guy who, as of ten years ago, had been in a Tanakh discussion group for thirty years, starting at Genesis. When I knew him they had worked their way up to Judges, sometimes spending a whole meeting debating one word. Don’t see much of that in Christian Bible study classes at the parish level, but my experience is limited. ---
**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:** [April 6, 2018, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895/40 "2018-04-06T05:47:18Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The title pretty much says it all. One of the key aspects of religion is that it requires FAITH. Faith is defined as belief in the absence of evidence or proof. I dispute premise. I do agree that one of the aspects of **modern** religion is faith instead of proof, but if you read your Bible you will see that the patriarchs and Noah and Abraham had ample proof of God’s existence, and did not have to rely on faith at all. Of course those stories aren’t true, but they are evidence that the God of Western religions does not want us to believe with faith alone. Not to mention that Jesus supposedly did miracles and supposedly provided all sorts of evidence of his divinity. In the early 19th century much science was done by religious people, partially because in England if you got a good church you got a good income without doing much but significantly because these people thought that as they learned more about the world through science, what they learned would support the Bible. Not literally, perhaps, but to a great extent. That didn’t turn out so well, and led to the rejection of science by many, especially after the Origin was published. Faith is an excellent recourse for those who know enough to understand and accept the science. For the others, there is Creationism and the false history of our friend **perryb**. Or, for the Dope at least, deism which lets you believe in god while accepting science and not going overboard on the faith. If you remember **Laugh In** from many years ago they had a continuing sketch where all of Martin’s kids looked just like neighbor Rowan. Dick Martin’s character had faith! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-religious-people-try-to-prove-god-exists/811895.md?page=3)