Why should anybody believe in God?

Great Debates
1

Here’s my latest attempt to unscrew the inscrutable. Object here is to evaluate the reasons people have given for belief. The object is to be analytical, not polemic. If you see a weakness in the viewpoint I post, point it out; I’ll do the same to yours. Thoughtful analyses by nonbelievers are particularly welcome; flames are not, from either side of the question.

A preliminary speculation would include four main arguments for belief:

[list=a][li]Design, Nature, etc.: Many people argue that they are convinced of the existence of God and or his nature (=character) through the observation of the physical world, which “proves” his existence and benevolence. I tend to disagree. I believe this is usually said as a bolstering argument by people whose faith derives from another source. If observation of the physical world “proved” God, no honest atheist could exist. I think that in general, people who use this argument read into the order and anthropicity of the universe the idea that it is the handiwork of a creator. It’s not a totally stupid idea, but neither is it self-evident.[/li][li]Scripture and Other Testimonial Evidence: This is not totally haywire, but implies giving a certitude of veracity (to speak in Nanobytese :)) to these documents that may or may not be warranted. There have been strong arguments advanced that many Bible accounts sound very like what are certainly protonymic myths and ancestral legends. Also, in my experience there is a strong tendency to elevate the documents to a level equal to God (as his divine/inerrant/whatever Word). Note that, while I’m speaking of the Bible (including the Torah as a special case), this could be equally true of the Koran, Granth, or any other scripture.[/li][li]Authority: Often people will have a belief simply because people they trust and respect have fostered it. This is no doubt true of every churchgoing child who has not yet started thinking things through for him or herself. Many adults continue in the “faith of their fathers” as well. Finally, a small portion of rational adults come to believe through the testimony of others as to their (the others’) faith. The obvious analysis here is that the authority figure has little or no better knowledge than does the person accepting the authority.[/li]Experience: We began an exploration of the experiences of those who claim to have had a direct experience of God, including myself, on this board. For discussion of this cause for belief, refer to the “A Modest Proposal” thread (which I cannot link to in an OP). [/list=a]

2

Love is included in D, would that be right, Poly?

3

E. Need: Many people don’t have, within themselves, the strength of character to maintain a moral life. They look to the church for guidance in how to act in a socially acceptable way. And through the church and a belief in God they gain a sense of community.
Peace,
mangeorge

I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000

4

I think the argument fom design is compelling. I think that there is a Creator, but I also think this Creotor is <i>completely</i> incomprehensible to us. Does an ant comprehend ahuman being? The gulf that seperates us from the Creator is muc, much greater.

It’s no secret that it gets my dander up when people assign attributes to God, atheists and Christians alike.
Attributes like jealousy, anger, love, etc.

Nonsense, balderdash and poppycock.

By the way, I don’t know why I believe in God. It’s just a gut feeling I have.

I know, I missed the point of the OP, but I have a heart condition. :slight_smile:

5

I think mangeorge’s “need theory” is good. We are herd animals at our most primitive, and as such, you are either a leader or a follower. Most people are followers. Therefore, they look for a leader, the bigger the power of that leader, the bigger herd you belong to. Safety in numbers. Which is why I think people are intolerant of other religions, it instantly means they are of another herd, and therefore an enemy. Same thing with race, instantly means they are of another herd. 'Course, this is all my own theory, so feel free to disregard it completely. However, if you’re interested, Millgram did some cool work with Obiedence to Authority.

Plus, it’s nice to look at the world, see beauty, and think that all that beauty was conciously created.

Habit rules the unreflecting herd. - Wordsworth

6

The “need” theory is probably right part of the time, but not as often as one might think.

There are different kinds of “need”. One might say “I need God’s comfort.” or “I need God’s strength.” They feel like they are not alone, they feel like Someone is looking after them. I personally think that kind of need is rather common.

I don’t know if many people need to have a religion tell them to not steal, kill, or lie. Either they think it’s wrong, or they don’t. Sure, I know there are some scary “cult” types, who follow blindly whatever their “leader” tell them. But are these kind of religious people actually that common? I can hardly think of anyone I’ve met who fits into that category. (Maybe I’m running around with the wrong crowd.)

So if a person decides that they want to adhere to a certain moral code, and they somehow think that going to a church will help them stay focused on that. Whatever it takes to get them to “do the right thing” sounds good to me. Bottom line is, they still had the moral strength and awareness to know that they wanted to not do immoral things.

I personally never bought the concept (brought up by some religious people) that atheists are not moral. That because they have no religion, they have no “moral boundaries” and just do whatever they want. And I also do not believe that religious people just are too weak to think for themselves, therefore they have to find someone else to “make the rules for them”. (Or whatever.) I’ve known very moral atheists, and immoral atheists, and moral and immoral religious people. I never noticed one group more inherintly moral than the other. (Just my observation.) Most people, at the end of the day, make up their own minds about what they want to do, and what feels right to them.

7

Yikes. Typos typos. Nuts.

Re-reading my last rambling post, wanted to clarify: “I need God’s comfort and strength.” was meant to be taken in the context of dealing with tragedy, danger, stress, life’s trials. Comfort, faith that things will work out, can help some religious people from worrying and fretting. A weakness that may be, but not in the same category as being too weak to do the right moral thing because it’s the right moral thing. I personally think my definition of “need” is more common.

8

yosemitebabe, I think that a quite a lot of people who are religious are so, at least somewhat, because they fear hell. Knowing that something is wrong doesn’t always prevent one from doing it. Fear, of God or of the authorities, usually will.
What I’m saying is that I think religion, fundamentally, is a good thing. Just not for me.
Peace,
mangeorge

9

It’s not for you, obviously. But I’m not sure I get your point. Just because something is not for certain indivduals does not mean that those who feel there is something in it for them are weak.

Most things that are considered “wrong” (i.e. “If I do it I’ll go to Hell”) also wrong on other levels. Stealing is wrong - it hurts other people, and most people who have a conscience know in their gut that it doesn’t “feel” right. A religious person, or a non-relgious person are both capable of having these feelings, right? My theory is that either people are nice, have empathy, do not innately wish to be selfish or hurt others, or they are shitheads. They can be a religious shithead (well, hypocritical religious shithead), or a non-relgious shithead. Same with being a moral and empathatic religous or non-relgious person. At the end of the day, we all make our choices as to what we are going to be, all on our own.
For instance. People decide that they believe in a Hell. Which is more tangible, a belief in Hell (something mythical-sounding, that no one has no evidence of) or a belief in the local jail and prison system? Someone who doesn’t do something wrong mainly because they believe they’ll be put in jail isn’t choosing to believe in jail. It’s undeniably REAL, no one can deny it, and stealing puts them at real risk of landing in jail. However, a person has to decide chooose to believe in Hell, and that God will punish people who do immoral things. No one makes them believe that. There is no tangible proof of it. Why would a morally weak person go out of their way to decide to believe in something that is going to make them struggle morally? It would be so much easier to not believe in it, hence no moral struggle for the morally weak. Weak people don’t like to struggle. (By the way, I make no implication here that people who don’t believe in Hell are not moral - far from it. It’s just that Hell was brought up as an example.)

Back to the OP - I agree with definition D - personal experience. It would be hard to truly believe in something that has no outside, tangible evidence, without a personal experience to back it up. I was never much for taking such things as the truth because someone else told me it was so. I have to find out for myself if I feel it is true for me.

10

I can’t answer for anyone else, but I believe in god because it makes me happy. I enjoy religious services and belonging to a community and feeling that I have a sense of purpose and a place in the universe. I’m not scared, and having lived quite happily as an atheist/agnostic for 20 years or so, don’t even feel a particular need to believe in god. I hope no one thinks I’m witnessing (do you have to be Christian to witness?), as I don’t think that everyone needs to believe in god to be happy.

~Harborina

“Don’t Do It.”

11

I’m not sure ‘need’ really belongs in here. It isn’t really an ‘argument for belief,’ in the language of the OP; it’s a (somewhat derisive and dismissive, although frequently warranted, IMO) explanation of why other people believe.

It’s certainly not an argument that will convince anyone else that they should believe: “What? You say you don’t need a god, and you’re doing fine without one? Boy, are you missing the boat. You should be as needful of and dependent on a Supreme Being as I am!” No, I don’t think anyone’s going to add that approach to their witnessing techniques.

There are other, more atrocious arguments that others make for believing. I reject this one out of hand, but I’m tossing it in for completeness’ sake:

F. Hell. ‘You’d better believe, because if you don’t, you’ll fry for eternity.’

There are variations on this. Those T-shirts that say something like ‘Jesus: CEO, The Universe’ boil down to the same strong-arm mentality - you’d better get in with the right crowd, if you want things to go well for you.

Sucking up to power is never appealing in any of its guises, but I find it particularly revulsive as a justification for adherence to a faith.

“Living in this complex world of the future is not unlike having bees live inside your head.” - F. Scott Firesign

12

I know I’ve mentioned this book before, but it applies 100% to this thread: How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science by Michael Shermer. He spends a great deal of time discussing why people believe in God, going over the reasons given by people themselves (in polls) and the reasons other people think believers believe. Very interesting.

13

I’m one of those who believes due to what I interpret as an experience of God; more details are available on Poly’s “Modest Proposal” thread.

For me, the experience was the essential element. Nature buttresses and informs my faith, but wouldn’t be sufficient by itself to generate that faith. Scripture guides and gives shape to my faith, but has nothing to do with whether I believe. I was well acquainted with Scripture before I believed, and wasn’t impressed. The experience made the words come alive, connected them with my life.

14

You have forgotten an important reason, the “natural one.” A growing body of scientific thought believes that religion is hardwired into the human brain. The human ability to think and to reason, to know of our own mortality and the important part of hope in a future. I believe religious or spiritual belief is intrinsic in the human mind as a defense mechanism against the fear of death and a hope in a future.

15

Who was it that first proposed “You have nothing to lose by believing in God, but everything to lose by not believing?” It starts with a P and is on the tip of my tongue…

That’s the bottom of the barrel argument. If you have no other reason to believe in God, then think about P’s Gambit or P’s Wager or whatever it’s called. If you live your life believing in God, and then die to find out that there is no God, you’ve lost nothing. However, if you go through life without believing, and die to find out that you’re wrong, well…you’re in deep shit.

For me, I just find the Evolution explanation for our presence here highly improbable. Yes, I do buy that evolution occurs and has occured for X number of years. However, a purely evolutionist take on life is fairly nebulous. Perhaps I’ll be satisfied when they can trace all life back to some pool of amino acids. Right now, they just say “Amino acids came together in the right environment to form proteins…and then this fish crawled out of the ocean.”

My main point of contention is the brain. It’s highly implausible that such a complex and wonderful thing could be created more or less spontaneously. If you get into the inner workings of the mind, you’ll find that it is one amazing doohickey. When I finished taking a neuroscience course a few years ago, all I could think was “no WAY ‘nature’ created THAT.”

However, even if we were to “prove” creation, that still doesn’t necessarily merit the existence of a Supreme Governor of the Universe. I came to this conclusion rather recently while thinking about St. Thomas Aquinas. One of his main points was that everything must be put into motion by something else, that to go from a state of potentiality to a state of being requires some external force…therefore, there must have been a first “mover,” or God. I was thinking about this, and I said to myself “self, why does he (we) assume that the first mover is our Supreme Lord and Master?”

So then pure creationism can’t really prove (at least to me) the existence of (a) God. For that, I think you have to sit and consider the “meaning” or “purpose” of our lives here. Basically, the main difference between humans and animals is our need for self-actualization. We desire to “make the best of ourselves.” We (most of us) try to be “good.” We have a concept of “virtues” and “ethics.” A corrolary to this is our need to express ourselves. Name for me one animal that creates art (on its own…cats whose masters dip their feet in paint and make them walk across a canvas do not qualify). So why? Simply because our frontal lobes are more developed? Personally, I think that the existence of a Higher Power is a better explanation.

But I also think that it’s a personal decision. I’m not trying to convince anybody of the existence of (a) God here. But I guess that those are a couple of “reasons” why I believe (“gut feeling” also works too).

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill

16

Oh, please don’t make us debunk Pascal’s wager again. We have better things to do.

Icerigger, I don’t know that religion itself is hardwired in, but pattern-finding is. Man needs to find patterns to succeed (and has needed to in order to succeed in evolution). If a person sees a pattern where there really is none (for example, a god causing the sun to rise each day), that person is probably not hurt too much; if that same person fails to see a pattern where there is one (the buffalo always migrate this way at this time of year, and we can get lots of food from them), it may indeed be harmful. Thus, on an evolutionary level, it’s better for a person to find too many patterns than not enough – which may help to explain religion.

Ignorance is Bliss.
Reality is Better.

17

Rousseau, it what way does your silly interpretation of the Wager tell us which god or goddess to believe in?

18

Yep.

Before he took off, Phil recommended a book to me, Phantoms in the Brain, by V.S Ramachandran. Using simple experiments, he documents a connection between the limbic system and religion. After establishing this connection, he gets tantalizingly close to where everybody reading will surely think he is leading, and then he springs a surprise:

In other words, existence of the limbic system does not necessarily imply that we invented God. Instead maybe God gave us a limbic system so we could come to know of Him.

19

As I ignore slythe’s silly interpretation of my post…

Ramachandran is the freaking man. But I did not know that he did work dealing with this. He’s most notably known for his work with “phantom limb,” and I suspect that’s what the book is mainly about. I’ll have to look into his work on connecting religion with the limbic system. Cool. How recently was the book published?

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill

20

Ok you guys, let me try yo clarify my point one more time. :slight_smile:
I don’t mean to sound derisive or dismissive of others reasons for belief. I’m talking about that significant minority of religious people who have led sinful lives, then found God (Higher Power?). The converts. They were needful until they found what would fill a emptiness in their lives. Some of the most fervent believers I’ve known fit into this catagory. That’s great! Unhappy lives turned around.
My point is that they came to religion through need, not through epiphany. And they are well served by their discovery.
Peace,
mangeorge