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

Great Debates
101

To the OP:

Seems very clear to me that most humans are afraid of death – likely the only certainty we’re aware of on a daily basis.

Religion provides what can’t be refuted through logic and/or reason. Not like any of their “costumers” has ever come back to ask for a refund – nor is it likely to happen knowing what little and/or much we know about the supernatural today.

I do see that the more pragmatic branches of religion have been obliged to acknowledge that the remains of the “god of the gaps,” is simply ignorance yet to be factually refuted – some of it anyway, for facts have little to do with how a believer’s mind works.

That’s where faith takes over…

Hell of a racket if you ask me.

Edited for clarity by moi. Even if most believers don’t quite “get it.”

102

[QUOTE=the raindog]

I mean no disrespect, but in my time here as a lurker and participant I can count on one hand (and still allow for a few missing digits) the people that I have perceived have the read the bible cover to cover. Off the top of my head, two come to mind. (And I’m not sure of that as they’ve never said as much) I suppose I might come up with another one or two if I really think. (although, frankly I doubt it)

The comment ‘many heref have read the complete bible’, is preposterous in my view. There is a huge difference between having read the complete and saying you’ve read the complete bible. Among the latter, there are many here who have claimed to have read it cover to cover—and incredibly several who claim to have read it cover to cover many times. (IIRC, one who claimed to have read the OT 3 times and, incredibly, the NT 8 times)

Reading Asimov is not the same as reading Paul [of Tarsus], Ehrman as the Gospels. (or the University of Google) [Fu :smack: ] Hate to come and urinate in the “We’re the SDMB and we’re smarter than everyone else on the internet” kool-aid, but this is hardly a place for biblical knowledge.

My [tired] mantra: If you want to know more about the bible (whatever your motivation) read it for yourself.
[/QUOTE]

32 years ago, on a message board discussion of religion (yes, that is 32 years) I said that I’d read the Bible cover to cover if someone sent me one. Someone did, and I kept my word. I even have the notes I’ve taken around somewhere. I haven’t read it three times, though I’ve read Genesis lots. I’ve read Asimov’s Guide, and was not impressed, to tell you the truth. I agree that someone reading Asimov hasn’t come anywhere close to reading the Bible.

Of course I do not have one hundredth the Bible learning that Dio does. But it is not at all true that reading the entire Bible makes you a believer.

In my experience, many atheists have read the complete Bible. Not believing it is true doesn’t reduce my appreciation for the quality of the language and the stories.

103

[QUOTE=Voyager]
32 years ago, on a message board discussion of religion (yes, that is 32 years) I said that I’d read the Bible cover to cover if someone sent me one. Someone did, and I kept my word. I even have the notes I’ve taken around somewhere. I haven’t read it three times, though I’ve read Genesis lots. I’ve read Asimov’s Guide, and was not impressed, to tell you the truth. I agree that someone reading Asimov hasn’t come anywhere close to reading the Bible.

Of course I do not have one hundredth the Bible learning that Dio does. But it is not at all true that reading the entire Bible makes you a believer.

In my experience, many atheists have read the complete Bible. Not believing it is true doesn’t reduce my appreciation for the quality of the language and the stories.
[/QUOTE]

Why is it so hard to believe that an atheist has read the bible cover to cover? As it has been said before the more educated tend to be less religious and I wouldn’t find it surprising at all if more atheist have fully read the bible than theists.

104

Wow. This thread’s still open. Okay…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8110336&postcount=165

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’ ? — John 10:34

What made you think I’m annoyed by Jehovah’s Witnesses?

I’m not sure you understand my complaint. You said, “A long time ago the God explanation was as good or better than any other.” You should have referenced a “god of the gaps” in that comment because not every god concept — including not every ancient one, nor every one among modern primitives — is anything even remotely like that. To use the different meanings of god interchangeably is to equivocate.

105

[QUOTE=Evil Joe]
As it has been said before the more educated tend to be less religious…
[/QUOTE]
Maybe so, but…

In the United States, religious attendance rises sharply with education across individuals, but religious attendance declines sharply with education across denominations. This puzzle is explained if education both increases the returns to social connection and reduces the extent of religious belief, and if beliefs are closely linked to denominations. The positive effect of education on social connection is the result of both treatment and selection: schooling creates social skills and people who are good at sitting still. And, people who are innately better at listening have lower costs of both school and social activities, such as church. The negative effect of education on religious belief occurs because secular education emphasizes secular beliefs that are at odds with many traditional religious views.
— Education and Religion, E. Glaezer, Harvard University, and B Sacerdote, Dartmouth College, 2002

(Emphasis mine)

106

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Liberal, no matter how annoying they may be to you personally, you might want to spend some time reading about the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in this country – especially during the first half of the 20th Century. I didn’t know anything about it myself until a recent series of lectures at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt. Just sayin’.

echo6061, last minute question! Which U.S. president was sworn in on a Jehovah’s Witness Bible? tick tock tick tock…

(Actually, I think his mother brought him up as a Jehovah’s Witness, but he changed later in life.) tick tock tick tock…
[/QUOTE]

Ahem. The religious organization that is now known as Jehovah’s Witnesses began by studying the King James version of the bible, in the late 1800’s. If you prefer, almost all of the major points that Jehovah’s Witnesses make can be supported by that version. Many Catholics have changed their tune when they read things in their own Bible like “Thou shalt not make a carved image of <snip> anything <snip> and bow down to it, nor be induced to serve it”. So, “Jehovah’s Witness Bible” isn’t really a fair statement. :cool:

107

[QUOTE=Voyager]

I assure you that many of us have read the complete Bible. Now, have you studied things outside the Bible? Do you understand which archeological discoveries support the historical record of the Bible, and which refute it? Do you understand how evolution and cosmology refute Genesis from the writing of scientists, not from the Watchtower? Your request is quite fair, but so is mine.

<snip>

Whyever would we put doubt aside?

<snip>

I started out as a believer. Then, as I read more, I had doubts. When I read the entire Bible, cover to cover, I became an atheist. I wonder if you would take the same challenge about, say, the evolution of man?
[/QUOTE]

point 1 - Notice that I didn’t say “read the entire bible”. Nobody ever got any sense from it that way. You’ve got to study it the same way you study Hemmingway, or some other confusing literary master, looking for the principles, the points that are made by the relating of certain experiences, stories, etc. And, if you *actually read * the Watchtower, you’d see that very often *secular scientists * own quotes are used to support the conclusions that are drawn. It was the very fact that there are as many scientists who make claims to support the Bible as their are to refute it that got me to decide for myself which was the case. I do read many publications outside the Watchtower.

point 2 - You **have to ** put doubt aside or else it clouds your vision. I’m not asking you to get rid of it, just put it on hold long enough to mentally digest something new. This is exactly the same thing you do when learning imaginary numbers, or when learning about the doppler effect, or anything else that you previously didn’t understand or believe.

point 3 - I started as a confused religious mutt. No direction from my parents other than “God is there, we just don’t understand Him fully”. Part atheist, part agnostic, depending on how I was feeling. I know full well what I’m getting into, and what I’m leaving. I’m getting baptized as a Jehovah’s Witness on March 18th. I’ve been studying about two and a half years now.

I was taught in high school the same evolution theory that everyone else was. I spent a little personal time investigating those claims and decided it was hogwash. By investigation, I mean a gradual accumulation of information over about 8 years, during which time I was not particularly religious, so my mind wasn’t pre-disposed to anything. Let me ask you this. If humanity truly evolved from a different life form, why aren’t there more archaeological records of that particular evolutionary path? For pete’s sake we’ve got MULTIMILLION year old dino bones, why no 1,000,000 year old human-ape bones? There should be *lots * and *lots * of bones to support the claim…as sooo many changes in our physical structure were needed. And sooo many individuals had to take part in the changes…can’t get from amoeba to human with just one little family now can you? You need lots to substantiate the claim that it was mutation and natural selection.

I’ve spent enough time studying the Bible and comparing it to other religions to see that only the Bible contains harmony throughout, despite the “contradictions” that most seem to claim. They all evaporate when put under scrutiny. Once you learn the true theme to the Bible, and check for yourself, you might see where I’m coming from. There’s actually an explanation in the Bible for things like “Why does God permit Suffering?” and “What happens to us when we Die?”. Believe it or duck your head in the sand, it’s not what your Priest told you.

Besides, I was just responding to the OP by stating why he couldn’t apply scientific method to God…the whole “evidence” thing, remember? :wink: There’s no need for a “Mine is Better” contest.

And on that note, I think I’ve convinced myself that we’ll never get any further than agreeing to disagree. Agreed? :smiley:

108

Liberal:

I was talking about my last post: Lib , could you kindly give your opinion on the following statements of possibilities?

1 There is more than one Jesus and they disagree among themselves as to what “goodness” consists of, and communicate these disagreements to their believers.

  1. Jesus tells you the truth, but lies to those who disagree with you.

  2. You can tell the difference between a message from Jesus and a hallucination, but others can’t.

  3. There isn’t any objective truth, and Jesus is trying to communicate that fact to his listeners.

  4. There is some other reason that I haven’t thought of why people who believe wholeheartedly that they are communicating with Jesus receive contradictory messages about what “goodness” is.

Thanks M

Anyway, the answer you offer above seems to be leading towards both absolute solipsism
and, if such a term exists, absolute relativism. If everyone has an individual God, and these gods don’t agree on what “goodness” is, where does anyone start to look for this “goodness”? And how does anyone determine that a given action is good or bad, if the godss themselves can’t agree?

109

[QUOTE=echo6160]
Ahem. The religious organization that is now known as Jehovah’s Witnesses began by studying the King James version of the bible, in the late 1800’s. If you prefer, almost all of the major points that Jehovah’s Witnesses make can be supported by that version.
[/QUOTE]

I strongly disagree. This is precisely why the JWs came up with The New World Translation – because their major teachings could not be adequately defended from the King James. (As an aside, I think the NWT displays abominable “scholarship”, but that’s subject for another debate.)

110

The question posed by the thread title is a perennial in here.

a) There are people who feel that nothing exists except those things that can be demonstrated to exist as matter and/or energy and the specific manifestations it may have. “Justice”, for example, does not exist, although at some very distant remove a chain of evidence can lead to the conclusion that a shared social notion of something called “Justice” appears to exist, and that the distriubtion in the populations of people whose multiple-choice response to “Define justice” was “xxx” are statistically more inclined to do “abc” than those whose response was “yyy”. Those who believe there really is a use for the word “justice”, as used by the speaker to refer to an actual phenomenon and not the phenomenon of folks believing in “justice”, may similarly believe there is such a use for the word “God”. That include some folks who do not personally use the word, but who find it reasonable that other folks might.

b) In parallel and loosely associated with that, there are those who believe that if reality can be described reductionistically in a certain fashion, any other less reductionistic description is an oversimplification or even “an illusion”. Commonplace examples would be physicists who regard what chemists study as being “not what is actually so”. The extreme, brought forth by those who are not reductionists, is the observation that the universe consists of the activities of subatomic microparticles (which are not, apparently “particles” so much as interactions and “statistical tendencies to exist”) and that, therefore, nothing exists except those little flashes of “tendencies to exist” — stars, Mt. Everest, your dog, molecules of oxygen, and you: all illusions and to speak of such things is to speak of things that do not exist. The reductionist says the world can be described according to rules of physical evidence and therefore there’s no need for “God” as a descriptor of anything real. The non-reductionist says the physical-evidence picture is real and useful, but doesn’t mean that other pictures of what is real are wrong.

111

[QUOTE=Mapache]
Liberal:

I was talking about my last post: Lib , could you kindly give your opinion on the following statements of possibilities?
[/quote]
Sure.

That is possible.

That depends on whether your number [1] is true. If there is more than one Jesus, then the Jesus in your number [2] is unidentified. But I can say that it isn’t true of the Jesus I rely on because He is the way, the truth, and the life.

Not sure about others. But a message from Jesus for me can’t be mistaken for an hallucination because it doesn’t work that way. I don’t see anything or hear anything. I simply am given a new understanding that I did not have before. It’s an epiphany of this kind: “a sudden, intuitive perception of or insight into the reality or essential meaning of something”, rather than this kind: “an appearance or manifestation, esp. of a deity”. (From dictionary dot com)

There is one sense in which I disagree with that, and another sense in which I agree with it completely. Truth is essential, or to put in another way, truth is what is. On the other hand, a property that is true in one world may or may not be a true property in another world. For truth to be objective, it would have to be true in every possible world. We know that there are such truths. For example, in every possible semantical world, identity must obtain. Otherwise, the semantics itself is nonsense. If A is Not A, then A can mean anything. Contradictions prove everything true; whereas tautologies are proved by everything. Therefore, every tautology is true. The God I worship is a tautology because the possibility of His existence implies the necessity of it.

Well, goodness is never objective. What is good is always what the subject values and is therefore always subjective.

You’re welcome! :slight_smile:

In my theology, it really doesn’t matter. You’re to be given the desires of your heart. Whatever it is you treasure most, that is what you will pursue. And you will be given it because God is the facilitator of goodness.

112

[QUOTE=JThunder]
I strongly disagree. This is precisely why the JWs came up with The New World Translation – because their major teachings could not be adequately defended from the King James. (As an aside, I think the NWT displays abominable “scholarship”, but that’s subject for another debate.)
[/QUOTE]

Strongly disagree all you like.

Next time a witness is at your door, tell them you’ll only listen if they uphold their claims by using the King James. Just say - “I’m not ready to hear anything from your Bible. Show me in mine.” Then go get your very own dusty, tried and true copy of that particular Bible off of your own shelf that you use in church. (If you go, most people who makes these claims don’t even go) You prolly won’t, so this post may be pointless…but just give it a try. Really. They won’t melt your brain. Maybe stimulate it though.

I’m telling you man…I’m as skeptical as they come. Yet here I am, brain intact.

On a side point. Even if Jehovah’s Witnesses are completely wrong, if you spent any significant time at their Kingdom Halls or socializing with them, or studying with them, you’d see that there are no people who are more worth spending time with as a group. Worst case scenario for me is that I spend a lot of time with a bunch of sincerely and genuinely nice people who base their beliefs on unpopular fairy tales. Not so bad, is it? :eek:

113

[QUOTE=JThunder]
I strongly disagree. This is precisely why the JWs came up with The New World Translation – because their major teachings could not be adequately defended from the King James. (As an aside, I think the NWT displays abominable “scholarship”, but that’s subject for another debate.)
[/QUOTE]

This is not true. Prove the assertion, “This is precisely why the JWs came up with The New World Translation…” bolding mine

What are their major teachings, and in what substantive way does the NWT differ from the KJV? (in support of those teachings I presume) Is someone able to refute those major teachings, using the KJV; I mean in a substantive way—in a way that goes to heart of the narratives? (vs arcane arguments over an occasional word, in an 800,000 word collection of books spanning 1500 years) Given that the KJV is widely criticized for it’s scholarship, and there have been dozens of major translations in the 500 years since it’s translations, in what substantive way does the NWT differ from the widely used and accepted translations in use today? NIV? AS? ARS? Douay? Darby? JB Phillips? Amplified?

For my part, I see little difference between the major tranlations. In substance, they pretty much all say the same thing. Certainly there are differences, and among scholars there is often criticism over renderings. But the common man will not find a text that says Jesus says “black” in the KJV/AR/NIV/JB/Douay etc and it says Jesus says “white” in another version.

The biggest difference between the NWT and other versions is the use of the name “Jehovah.” JWs believe that the original Jews and Jewish Christians were to use God’s name.

They believe that historical findings of ancient texts support the notion that the original writings did in fact contain God’s name. (as represented by the Tetragrammaton) ( Often written as Yahweh Adonai, Elohim etc) They believe that there is compelling historical evidence to support the reasonings that the original author wrote God’s name the Jews/Jewish Christians were instructed to use it, and they did use God’s name.

They believe that there is compelling evidence to indicate that non-biblical, 2nd and 3rd century superstitions made it a sin to either write or speak God’s true name. (and it is a sad commentary that many, many people actually believe God’s name is “God”) This superstition prevails today with many unwilling to say God’s name, (As it being too holy to say out loud) or typing “G-d” instead “God.” (For fear of it ever being erased)

The many translations that use "God"and “Lord” etc in small capital letters often do this as a transaltion for the Tetragrammaton or other places where God’s proper name existed in the original text. JW’s believe that the NWT restores God’s name to it’s proper and original place both in the biblical texts and in day to day use. In their research, where God’s proper name existed in the texts they use “Jehovah” in English, whereas many translations use “God” or “Lord” (usually in small caps)

That is the biggest single difference between the NWT and other translations. While JWs use the NWT, there is no prohibition in using other translations, and JW literature often cite other translations. Prior to the NWT, I believe JWs actually used the Revised Standard or New Revised Standard, not the KJV. The statement “because their major teachings could not be adequately defended from the King James” is simply not accurate.

114

[QUOTE=echo6160]
Strongly disagree all you like.

Next time a witness is at your door, tell them you’ll only listen if they uphold their claims by using the King James. Just say - “I’m not ready to hear anything from your Bible. Show me in mine.” Then go get your very own dusty, tried and true copy of that particular Bible off of your own shelf that you use in church. (If you go, most people who makes these claims don’t even go) You prolly won’t, so this post may be pointless…but just give it a try. Really. They won’t melt your brain. Maybe stimulate it though.

I’m telling you man…I’m as skeptical as they come. Yet here I am, brain intact.

On a side point. Even if Jehovah’s Witnesses are completely wrong, if you spent any significant time at their Kingdom Halls or socializing with them, or studying with them, you’d see that there are no people who are more worth spending time with as a group. Worst case scenario for me is that I spend a lot of time with a bunch of sincerely and genuinely nice people who base their beliefs on unpopular fairy tales. Not so bad, is it? :eek:
[/QUOTE]

In response to echo6160, I believe the overwhelming amount of JWs, if asked to use the KJV, would do so gladly.

Perhaps a very young, or inexperienced, JW would be reluctant. The overwhelming amount however, would do so.

What they wouldn’t do, however, is debate you. They are interested in people who are interested in learning more about the bible, and would like to know more about God. (Like his real name for example) If the JW perceived that the homeowner was either hostile or looking to pick a fight/debate, they would be uninterested. Theu have little to prove, and have no interest in seeing who knows more about the bible.

115

[QUOTE=Voyager]
32 years ago, on a message board discussion of religion (yes, that is 32 years) I said that I’d read the Bible cover to cover if someone sent me one. Someone did, and I kept my word. I even have the notes I’ve taken around somewhere. I haven’t read it three times, though I’ve read Genesis lots. I’ve read Asimov’s Guide, and was not impressed, to tell you the truth. I agree that someone reading Asimov hasn’t come anywhere close to reading the Bible.

Of course I do not have one hundredth the Bible learning that Dio does. But it is not at all true that reading the entire Bible makes you a believer.

In my experience, many atheists have read the complete Bible. Not believing it is true doesn’t reduce my appreciation for the quality of the language and the stories.
[/QUOTE]

Please understand that I’m not picking on you. But a bible toting fundamentalist would give pause before jumping into a conversation after being warned with the words, “I assure you that many of us have read the complete Bible…”

Yet, you read it 32 years ago! And frankly, most of those who I’ve responded to have had similar qualifiers. The basic response many times is essentially "I’ve read the bible __ times, but [insert reason here as to why this knowledge won’t be manifest in my postings, and why I won’t be using the bible in a bible based discussion. ]

The place is chock full of people who have read the bible cover to cover (certainly at a much higher percentage than the population at large) and who can’t, or won’t, use it in a discussion!

116

[QUOTE=echo6160]

I was taught in high school the same evolution theory that everyone else was. I spent a little personal time investigating those claims and decided it was hogwash. By investigation, I mean a gradual accumulation of information over about 8 years, during which time I was not particularly religious, so my mind wasn’t pre-disposed to anything.

[/QUOTE]

If, by spending a little personal time, you mean reading up on Behe, Hovind and the like. well, I can’t blame you.

117

[QUOTE=the raindog]
In response to echo6160, I believe the overwhelming amount of JWs, if asked to use the KJV, would do so gladly.

Perhaps a very young, or inexperienced, JW would be reluctant. The overwhelming amount however, would do so.

What they wouldn’t do, however, is debate you. They are interested in people who are interested in learning more about the bible, and would like to know more about God. (Like his real name for example) If the JW perceived that the homeowner was either hostile or looking to pick a fight/debate, they would be uninterested. Theu have little to prove, and have no interest in seeing who knows more about the bible.
[/QUOTE]

Just to clear the water:

We’re basically saying the same thing, right?

I dunno your affiliation but I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I’m comfortable discussing just about anything with anyone using almost any Bible as source material…because it’s so easy to refute the obvious literary inventions used by the clergy to uphold incorrect teachings. If your math book said on page 1 that “9 divided by 3 equals 3”, then said on a later page that it equalled 16, you’d raise an eyebrow right?

And like you said, no we don’t debate. Yes we only seek to talk with those interested in learning. You need reasonable people to have a reasonable discussion. *You * have to be humble (teachable), as Jesus said, in order to benefit yourself. Self righteous hotheads who slam the door just don’t get as much attention.

118

Liberal:
Thank you for replying, but again your answer seems to open a whole new can of worms.
In a number of other threads, you have expressed quite reasonable outrage at the way Andrew Jackson treated your Cherokee ancestors.
So: if “Whatever it is you treasure most, that is what you will pursue. And you will be given it…”
And: What the Cherokee got was the Trail of Tears
Then: (you fill in the blank)
Or, if Osama treasures murder and martyrdom, the three thousand people in the Twin Towers probably didn’t treasure being crushed, burned alive, or forced to jump out of a thirtyfifth floor window. Why weren’t they given their desire?
It sounds like there must be various gods dukeing it out among themselves as to which one gets to grant his followers wishes. Or am I missing something?

119

[QUOTE=Anduril]
If, by spending a little personal time, you mean reading up on Behe, Hovind and the like. well, I can’t blame you.
[/QUOTE]

I honestly haven’t a clue as to the names of the people who wrote what I read over the years. All I know is that what I read was underwhelming. That’s probably why the authors weren’t indelibly written on my mind. Nobody has been able to explain evolution (in a book or in a classroom) in a way that didn’t require “logic based extrapolation of existing information”. Sounds like faith to me, and I just didn’t buy it.

Besides, one of my favorite Scriptures is the one in proverbs (yeah yeah need a cite and all…) that says “Do not lean upon your own understanding, in all your ways take notice of Him (Jehovah) and he himself will make your paths straight”. And the one that warns of being carried “hither and tither by various teachings of men like waves in the sea” or something to that effect. Basically, one God, millions of men.

If I were to suddenly become a weaker person for having chosen this particular path, well then darn me to heck. But I somehow doubt that will happen.

120

[QUOTE=Mapache]
Liberal:
Thank you for replying, but again your answer seems to open a whole new can of worms.
In a number of other threads, you have expressed quite reasonable outrage at the way Andrew Jackson treated your Cherokee ancestors.
So: if “Whatever it is you treasure most, that is what you will pursue. And you will be given it…”
And: What the Cherokee got was the Trail of Tears
Then: (you fill in the blank)
Or, if Osama treasures murder and martyrdom, the three thousand people in the Twin Towers probably didn’t treasure being crushed, burned alive, or forced to jump out of a thirtyfifth floor window. Why weren’t they given their desire?
It sounds like there must be various gods dukeing it out among themselves as to which one gets to grant his followers wishes. Or am I missing something?
[/QUOTE]

You’re misunderstanding the scripture. It was in Mathew. It referred to slaving for God, or slaving for Riches. “You cannot slave for two masters, for either you will hate the one and stick to the other, or you will love the one and despise the other”. It goes on to say that you should pursue Godly things, namely, the Kingdom. In that way, you will be given what you strive for. Either riches, like Donald Trump, or the Kingdom of God, which he gives in his due time.