Why do we believe in God, when there is no scientific evidence of its existance

Great Debates
1

We address self-proclaimed psychics and mediums as lunatics, but praise those who devote themselves to God. A bit contradicting, dont you think? Both of these cases lacks scientific evidence, living in the twenty-first century, we should know better on whats “made up” and whats not. Man has always wondered the origins of their existance, and of course naturally attribute this to some ommnipotent being that they assume as the creator of the universe. But seriously, we should know that this is all just some hocus-pocus that ancient man has made up to address the question of their existance…

We all know that the universe came about because of the Big Bang and we came about through the natural process of evolution( Not from Adam and Eve ). All, this are solid scientific facts right in your face and not some fabled tale made up by others…

So, whats the debate about the existance of God?

2

Dunno, but it sounds like you haven’t got the materials together to participate in a debate yourself.

3

Because there is a vast number of things in life for which there is ‘no scientific proof’ and yet we believe. In fact, we don’t even question their existence.

Pretty much any word in your vocabulary that refers to a concept pertains to something which cannot be proven to exist. It’s just that there aren’t a large group of people deeply devoted to proving to you that ‘love’ cannot exist because it cannot be seen with microscope nor measured with gauge. If there were, you’d perhaps also have trouble believing in ‘hope’, ‘happiness’, ‘eleven’, or even ‘thought’.

4

Because not everyone operates based solely on empirically provable facts. For some, faith is as powerful a force in their lives as scientific reasoning. For that matter, there is quite a bit of our current science where the ‘evidence’ is based on things other than observable fact (Quantum Physics has a lot of this kind of thing where there is quite a bit of uncertainty involved).

I have no problem with folks who operate on faith…as long as they don’t attempt to shove it down MY throat. I’m a live and let live kind of guy. :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

5

Well, keep in mind that what we call “scientific evidence” is quite recent, with the Ancient Greeks dabbling in it, then the world mostly lost it for a while, then it being rediscovered sometime around Copernicus’s time. In its absence, notions of how the universe worked were driven by superstition, “revelations”, various inspiring cult/religion leaders, etc.

I’m personally hoping that secular ethics will replace religion entirely, but I’m not holding my breath. It’s simply not necessary that everyone be a skeptic in order for the society to technologically progress. 99% of a society might contribute nothing to science or engineering, but as long as they don’t hassle the remaining 1%, progress can still be made, benefiting the 99% whether they realize it or not.

Besides, believing in an afterlife and cosmic justice and whatnot is comforting for many people. Martin Gardner, a skeptic I deeply respect, said as much, as quoted in Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things though I can’t seem to find my copy just now for the exact wording. I’ve no objection (and in fact would find it rude to make an objection) to the beliefs of others, so long as said beliefs aren’t used to annoy me.

6

Its natural to be uncomfortable with the notion that we are all just bags of chemicals.

While I don’t personally believe that’s true I think its the best answer to the OP’s question.

7

For the same reason that we believe that neutrons exist when there is no Biblical evidence of it. Science is no more the proper tool for examining God than prayer is for examining gravity.

8

A long time ago the God explanation was as good or better than any other. Then the priests had an inspiration: as representatives of the god or gods, they told the king that God had particularly chosen him to rule. Thus, anyone worshipping a different god, or no god, was in direct rebellion to the king. It was then not hard to convince the king to make disbelief a crime.

Consider 16th century England, where Edward massacred the Catholics, Mary massacred the Protestants, and Elizabeth killed any Catholics foolish enough to admit their religion.

Thus for centuries, belief in (the right) god was safe, and disbelief was career and life limiting. In our secular society, atheists no long have to worry about getting killed, but just forget about running for President. Black lesbian communists have more of a chance.

How many people would believe without this social pressure? Hard to say.

9

Wow, good question. I don’t think this has ever been discussed or questioned before.

10

Please don’t contribute to the equivocation. I know that you know better. Just because two words are spelled the same doesn’t mean they mean the same. A god posited to explain gravity or love or fire is not the same entity as the God we worship. And this isn’t a modern thing. Metaphysical inquiries independent of physical inquiries have gone on for as long as we’ve had records of peoples’ contemplations.

11

What do you mean, “we”? :wink:
The Christian god is just the old Hebrew sky-god reimagined into the Almighty.

12

I don’t understand the distinction - don’t both postulate some unseen but powerful entity, inferred by its effect rather than its presence?

13

Given that 92% of people follow the same religion (or lack) as their parents, I think the answer to the OP is pretty easily answered. People do it because they are taught to.

14

The God concept is theoretical (and in my opinion can never ever be physically proved).

Scientific theories are set up to be knocked down by other scientists as part of process but we’ve still had a lot of weight given to Dark Matter in the past before there was much in the way of physical evidence for example ,and we have never ,ever sensed (detected etc.)ANY law of Nature directly,all scientific Laws are believed in by implication ,ie. by their effects ,whereas we can see(or feel etc.)matter or energy.

That said I believe in science not religion.

15

“Who is we white man?”

16

How about some cites? Do ya think you can come up with one or two…

hundred?

Lots of reasons why. Sage Rat probably nailed it best though.

17

I believe in the existence of my parents’ love for me without scientific evidence. Is that illegitimate?

18

[ul]
[li]Comfort - the idea that a big bearded man in the sky is watching out for us gives comfort to some people.[/li]
[li]Fear - the fear of eternal punishment is a pretty obvious deterrent from criticising the concept or existence of god. The idea of burning in agony for eternity is one of the most gruesome, fearful and terrible notions that anybody can imagine.[/li]
[li]Parental indoctrination - a child that is raised religiously will have, in their formative years, absorbed the religious processes of their parents. Obviously, such a thing is hard to simply cast off - it’s hard to see why praying and saying grace and going to church are unnecessary when you’ve been doing it for as long as you can remember with your mom and pop.[/li]
[li]Status quo - If you aren’t religious then you fall into a very small minority (if we’re focusing on the US). Atheists are up to, what, 6/7 percent now? You can be discriminated against for being openly atheist. Parents can disown you and scream that you are going to hell, not because you’ve killed or raped somebody, but because you’ve said ‘I don’t need an invisible, inaudible being to live my life’. You can forget about any kind of career movement in politics. IIRC, Atheists are deemed the least trustworthy people in America. When virtually everybody around you is religious, it may not be an easy option to buck the trend.[/li][/ul]

There’s plenty of evidence of your parents love for you. They inconvenience themselves for you, they buy you clothes and food, keep you warm. When you get hurt, they reassure you. THEY TELL YOU THEY LOVE YOU. And so on and so forth.

Of course, this is not conclusive, concrete, 100 percent, wham-bam-thankyou-mam proof that they love you. They could be putting up this whole charade while secretly despising you. The lie detector test that they took and passed (“Do you love your child?”) is not perfect, after all. ‘Science’ wouldn’t say that ‘they definitely love you, no doubt about it’. Science says ‘well, considering all of the evidence, their admission of love, their acts of love, it seems that the likely explanation is that they love their child, rather than not loving him. Until more evidence is presented that might say otherwise, we will assume that they love their child’. Of course, this is assuming that a definition of ‘love’ can be agreed upon. Love, like a good movie, can be very subjective, but just because we all like different movies, it doesn’t mean that God exists.

Besides, you wouldn’t be saying that you believe in the existence of your parents’ love for you without supporting evidence, despite your claim to the contrary. Would you still assert this belief if they beat you, starved you, called you a little shit, said they hated you, and kicked you out of the house at 16?

I can’t really see any justification that ‘because science can not currently explain happiness, then God must exist’. Nor can I see any justification for the two ‘dimensions’ of Science and Faith that have their own rules and very limited interoperability (where Faith is very conveniently untouchable by scientific analysis).

Alas, science and rationality plows on. We don’t lose knowledge (well, barring a massive disaster) but we constantly gain it. Our understanding of the world, the universe, increases daily. The gaps that people arrogantly fill with God are shrinking.

The tide is turning, Billy.

19

Jigging of neuro-transmitters in the brain.

A video of a fascinating lecture by Michael Persinger of my alma mater Laurentian University: http://www.tvo.org/TVOsites/WebObjects/TvoMicrosite.woa/wo/jZtAb9TLTiQW8R92jFc2UM/4.0.0.83.45.26.1.23.63.9.1.0

20

Very well put. I have a distinct issue in the use of “believe in God” in the same contextual sense as “believe in Bigfoot” or “believe in UFOs.” There are any number of convenient rationales why someone might adhere to a rationalized adherence to a creed, to bet at the same table as Blaise Pascal. Their belief in God is very much like what Peter Pan asks us to have in Tinkerbell.

But for many people, a sense of a loving Presence in their lives, coupled with an awareness that there is evidence (subjective, to be sure) that others throughout history have felt the same Presence and documented it in writing, leads them to the conclusion that God does in fact not only exist but desires a personal relationship with them.

Now, to be sure, human nature being what it is, a certain percentage of people on either side of any such argument will arrogantly maintain that they have exclusive access to The Truth, and that their opponents are necessarily deluded, brainwashed, the captives of the Evil Conspiracy, or whatever. I leave it to each person’s personal ethics to decide how such people should be reacted to, though I personally would draw a sociocultural line short of “with blunt instruments.”

People whose only avenue to certitude and peace of mind lies in rejecting a portion of the evidence of the world around them and those who take it into consideration deserve pity, not contempt, IMO.