Is there any reason to believe in God?

[tigerf0x]

Science cannot disprove God, but its lead us away from any real need to believe in God.
We know how and why we should be good we've learned that.
Do we really need a magical sky daddy any more?

 

[Whisperelmwood]

*shrugs* neh - I honestly don't think there was ever a 'need' to believe in any god/s.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Honestly, I think it is debateable that the idea of someone watching over us and judging us CAN help some people. A personal example, I occasionally don't pick up my Dog's poop but if someone sees me I ALWAYS do it. I am a pretty good person, and try to help people as much as possible - but truth be told I would do more if I truly believed it would get me into an eternal paradise or out of eternal torment. I'm not sure if that makes me a bad person, but it is the truth.

A loving Forgiving God, also is a valuable thing. As anyone that has been really depressed knows, feeling unloved is a dangerous and strength sapping thing.

These might not be a Good ENOUGH reasons to believe in God.... but its a reason. I certainly still believe that much of religion would still need to be changed before Religion itself was reasonable to believe in, but A judging but loving God figure that was believable, and a system of rewards beyond the simple ones we can construct in this life, certainly could have a positive effect on life on earth.

 

[DireStraitsFTW]

I honestly don't see why it matters to anyone else whether a person believes in God or not.

As a Catholic I do, and I think it is more that we want to believe in God than that we have tangible evidence.

I think the morals installed through religion in general are more than helpful to society as a whole, not that those without religion are immoral, but raised in such an environment I think we have more reason to act moral. Whether it be out of fear of a vengeful God, or respect for a loving one.

 

[GoodKat]

I think the morals installed through religion in general are more than helpful to society as a whole, not that those without religion are immoral, but raised in such an environment I think we have more reason to act moral. Whether it be out of fear of a vengeful God, or respect for a loving one.

Do you think perhaps that those who are moral without religion are just part of a minority who are able to be moral without religion, and that most people actually do require religious structure to be moral? I've been afraid that this might be true for a while.

 

[DireStraitsFTW]

I think the morals installed through religion in general are more than helpful to society as a whole, not that those without religion are immoral, but raised in such an environment I think we have more reason to act moral. Whether it be out of fear of a vengeful God, or respect for a loving one.

Do you think perhaps that those who are moral without religion are just part of a minority who are able to be moral without religion, and that most people actually do require religious structure to be moral? I've been afraid that this might be true for a while.[/quote]
I think there is something to be said for the augmentation of morals by religion.
And yes, in the case of fear of a vengeful God some may well require religion to be moral.

I don't think it is necessarily a minority of people who can be moral without religion. It all depends on the individual. I am merely pointing out some possibilities.

 

[Aught3]

I think that it is probably possible to construct a religion that overall improves people's behaviour and even makes them happier. It's certainly been tried before and the result has been quite successful in terms of spreading the idea. However, that doesn't make it true.

I also think this is a dangerous way of enforcing rules. If everyone agrees that 'sinners' will be punished after they die, it is no longer fair to punish them while they are here. If believers start to lose faith (and why wouldn't they since there would be no evidence) there would be no laws by which to punish their law breaking. The problem with (most) 'modern' religions e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam is that the rules do not update to reflect current society. To take the dog pooping example, if we invented a God who frowned on leaving your dog's mess around, people would start picking it up and the parks would be cleaner. Great, everybody wins. However, if it turned out that dog poop was necessary for fertilising the environment (say) would the believers be able to adjust, or would they stand in parks with signs condemning dog walkers to hell?

Most people obey the law and follow rules not because they are afraid of God but because they have a conscience. A conscience, it has been said, is the feeling that someone, somewhere, might be watching. And that is enough for me.

Personally, I don't like the idea of false conciliation. I don't think it's healthy to put off experiencing your feelings or to refer them upwards to someone who will take care of everything. I wouldn't offer it to anyone and I don't want it offered to me. It seems to me this is what religion is all about.

 

[Aught3]

I honestly don't see why it matters to anyone else whether a person believes in God or not.

You come very close to realising the answer in your own post.

I think we have more reason to act moral.

I've highlighted the important word. Beliefs inform actions, that's where the problems start.

 

[DireStraitsFTW]

I think that it is probably possible to construct a religion that overall improves people's behaviour and even makes them happier. It's certainly been tried before and the result has been quite successful in terms of spreading the idea. However, that doesn't make it true.

I also think this is a dangerous way of enforcing rules. If everyone agrees that 'sinners' will be punished after they die, it is no longer fair to punish them while they are here. If believers start to lose faith (and why wouldn't they since there would be no evidence) there would be no laws by which to punish their law breaking. The problem with (most) 'modern' religions e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam is that the rules do not update to reflect current society. To take the dog pooping example, if we invented a God who frowned on leaving your dog's mess around, people would start picking it up and the parks would be cleaner. Great, everybody wins. However, if it turned out that dog poop was necessary for fertilising the environment (say) would the believers be able to adjust, or would they stand in parks with signs condemning dog walkers to hell?

Most people obey the law and follow rules not because they are afraid of God but because they have a conscience. A conscience, it has been said, is the feeling that someone, somewhere, might be watching. And that is enough for me.

Personally, I don't like the idea of false conciliation. I don't think it's healthy to put off experiencing your feelings or to refer them upwards to someone who will take care of everything. I wouldn't offer it to anyone and I don't want it offered to me. It seems to me this is what religion is all about.

Fairness is a matter of opinion.
Nowhere is it said that one can't be punished in this world just because they will be punished after as well.
I'm all for punishment of wrongdoing.

And there are such strict doctrinists that keep the literal meaning of the laws passed down by religion, but most religions have and do change with the times.


Each individual has their own interpretation of their religion aside from the generally accepted doctrine. What isn't fair is to assume all religious people "put off experiencing their feelings". And if an individual does and that is what works for him, then so be it. What is it to you if he does?

 

[DireStraitsFTW]

You come very close to realising the answer in your own post.

I've highlighted the important word. Beliefs inform actions, that's where the problems start.

I don't think I fully understand your point.

There is a problem with acting moral because of ones' religion?

 

[Saul]

The first point to raise i think is to make sure we understand the term 'reason'. Reason is the thought process used to determine causal linkage between two propositions.
Therefore when one claims a 'reason' to believe in god, they must be specifically referring to the idea that there is evidence for god. That some state of the world inescapably leads to the conclusion that there is a god.
So anyone who claims that 'because I can't imagine a world without a god' or 'because the idea of a god is consoling' is a 'reason' for believing in a god is making a mokery of the word reason.
In fact if you were to follow the scientific method, ones desire for a god to exist would in fact offer further doubt to the hypothesis since during investigation and experiment people would likely be biased towards one particular outcome. Greater scrutiny would therefore be put upon the hypothesis and process through which it was developed.
The belief in a 'god' by certain people may well be beneficial to our society, for instance those I have spoken to whome believe in god and claim that if they did not they would have no reason not to murder people. However this offers no REASON to believe that a god exists. It merely offers a pragmatic solution to some problem, be it real or imaginary.

I would disagree with DireStraitsFTW, though I do enjoy the music of your namesake.
When someone believes a proposition, it has a direct affect on their behaviours. Imagine you came to believe you had won the lottery. Your behaviour would change drastically.
If I told you that you had won the lottery, the likelyhood is that you wouldn't believe me. But if you were to take my word and actually internalise that 'belief', then your behaviour would reflect how you now view the world around you.
Alternatively imagine that you come to believe that death is an illusion, and that committing an act of suicidal violence will garauntee you a 'flock of dark eyed virgins' in some afterlife paradise.
If you do not believe this proposition, then there is likely little I could say to you in order to encourage you to commit suicidal violence, but once you believe this the behavioural consequences could well be devastating.
Now I'm well aware that this is not one of your beliefs, and I'm sure that you will come back to state that your beliefs are not so 'extreme.' However the difference between believing in god, and believing in martyrdom is not in the belief itself, but in the behavioural consequences of that belief. On the level of the brain there is no difference between the two beliefs.
Now you say you are a 'catholic' (I know a considerable amount about catholicism as I went to a catholic school where we were expected to attend mass, pray every morning in assembly, and were taught religious studies by priests) so if you are a catholic as you say you are then up until a few years ago you believed in the transubstanciation. Whether or not this is true, you believe that it is an appropriate way to worship 'god' by eating a wafer and drinking some wine. This is a belief and its behavioural consequence.
Now consider that your religion is the only one of thousands to have gotten it right. You likely have neighbours and friends who are not of that religion. If you really believe the tenents of your religion, then you are going to heaven (provided your good enough) but for believing in the wrong religion they are going to hell. If you do not believe this then you have either not read the new testement or have found some way to ignore the numerous passages to this effect.
Imagine now that you have children. They may well become friends with those of another religion. Your children are succeptable though, to the opinions and beliefs of others. It is possible that these neighbours or friends may convince your children to follow a different god (as this can and does happen in the world). If this is possible then your neighbours and friends of different religions are worse than child molestors, as they hold it within their power not just to destroy your childrens lives, but to in fact damn their souls for all eternity.
As soon as you grant these beliefs credence then you can no longer suffer this potential disaster for the souls of your children.
This kind of religious belief will affect your behaviour, and when truly believed it becomes anti-thetical to the notion of tolerence itself.

Saul

 

[Aught3]

Hi DireStraitsFTW, first of all I should say I started typing my first post before you had responded to this thread. Sorry if you thought the post was an attack on your position it wasn't intentionally.

Fairness is a matter of opinion.

Well ok, in my view it's not fair to punish somebody for the same thing twice. Does anybody disagree with this?

And there are such strict doctrinists that keep the literal meaning of the laws passed down by religion

That's precisely the problem I was identifying. Many christians look in the bible see a verse about homosexuals being condemned and apply it to the real world. Do you not agree that the struggle for equal gay/lesbian rights would be much further along if it wasn't for the opposition of the church? I don't know what your position on the matter is but it's my understanding that the catholic church is opposed to equal rights.

Each individual has their own interpretation of their religion aside from the generally accepted doctrine. What isn't fair is to assume all religious people "put off experiencing their feelings". And if an individual does and that is what works for him, then so be it. What is it to you if he does?

I agree with you for the most part here. To be fair though, I did explicitly say it was my opinion that burying your feelings isn't healthy. I don't think that's a very controversial statement, though. My preference is for a healthy society and if, in general, it is unhealthy to bury feelings, then I think people should not, in general, engage in activities or thought patterns that allow them to do it.

I don't think I fully understand your point.

There is a problem with acting moral because of ones' religion?

This is why I said you came close to answering the question. I didn't highlight the word 'moral' I highlighted the word 'act'. Again I don't know your position but I often hear people agree that there is no evidence for God and that they believe on faith. The problems start when people begin acting on these beliefs, I'm sure we can all think of examples where the outcomes of this were bad in general.

 

[DireStraitsFTW]

The first point to raise i think is to make sure we understand the term 'reason'. Reason is the thought process used to determine causal linkage between two propositions.
Therefore when one claims a 'reason' to believe in god, they must be specifically referring to the idea that there is evidence for god. That some state of the world inescapably leads to the conclusion that there is a god.
So anyone who claims that 'because I can't imagine a world without a god' or 'because the idea of a god is consoling' is a 'reason' for believing in a god is making a mokery of the word reason.
In fact if you were to follow the scientific method, ones desire for a god to exist would in fact offer further doubt to the hypothesis since during investigation and experiment people would likely be biased towards one particular outcome. Greater scrutiny would therefore be put upon the hypothesis and process through which it was developed.
The belief in a 'god' by certain people may well be beneficial to our society, for instance those I have spoken to whome believe in god and claim that if they did not they would have no reason not to murder people. However this offers no REASON to believe that a god exists. It merely offers a pragmatic solution to some problem, be it real or imaginary.

I would disagree with DireStraitsFTW, though I do enjoy the music of your namesake.
When someone believes a proposition, it has a direct affect on their behaviours. Imagine you came to believe you had won the lottery. Your behaviour would change drastically.
If I told you that you had won the lottery, the likelyhood is that you wouldn't believe me. But if you were to take my word and actually internalise that 'belief', then your behaviour would reflect how you now view the world around you.
Alternatively imagine that you come to believe that death is an illusion, and that committing an act of suicidal violence will garauntee you a 'flock of dark eyed virgins' in some afterlife paradise.
If you do not believe this proposition, then there is likely little I could say to you in order to encourage you to commit suicidal violence, but once you believe this the behavioural consequences could well be devastating.
Now I'm well aware that this is not one of your beliefs, and I'm sure that you will come back to state that your beliefs are not so 'extreme.' However the difference between believing in god, and believing in martyrdom is not in the belief itself, but in the behavioural consequences of that belief. On the level of the brain there is no difference between the two beliefs.
Now you say you are a 'catholic' (I know a considerable amount about catholicism as I went to a catholic school where we were expected to attend mass, pray every morning in assembly, and were taught religious studies by priests) so if you are a catholic as you say you are then up until a few years ago you believed in the transubstanciation. Whether or not this is true, you believe that it is an appropriate way to worship 'god' by eating a wafer and drinking some wine. This is a belief and its behavioural consequence.
Now consider that your religion is the only one of thousands to have gotten it right. You likely have neighbours and friends who are not of that religion. If you really believe the tenents of your religion, then you are going to heaven (provided your good enough) but for believing in the wrong religion they are going to hell. If you do not believe this then you have either not read the new testement or have found some way to ignore the numerous passages to this effect.
Imagine now that you have children. They may well become friends with those of another religion. Your children are succeptable though, to the opinions and beliefs of others. It is possible that these neighbours or friends may convince your children to follow a different god (as this can and does happen in the world). If this is possible then your neighbours and friends of different religions are worse than child molestors, as they hold it within their power not just to destroy your childrens lives, but to in fact damn their souls for all eternity.
As soon as you grant these beliefs credence then you can no longer suffer this potential disaster for the souls of your children.
This kind of religious belief will affect your behaviour, and when truly believed it becomes anti-thetical to the notion of tolerence itself.

Saul

First, I completely disagree that the term 'reason' implies in any way a necessity of evidence.

Now, I am a Catholic technically, though I do not believe in such strict doctrines as many do. I do indeed partake in Communion, though I believe it personally to be more symbolic and tradition than anything now.

I accept that intolerance is sharply contradicted by some beliefs held in religion, but as I have said I am not so strict in the doctrine to believe that. Nor, I think, are many so strict as to take actions based on said beliefs, but why is it that actions on behalf of beliefs from a religious stance are worse than the same or worse actions from someone not acting because of a religious belief?

I do not think it fair to generalize like this, or to say that some acting negatively because of the views of many is a reason against those views.

 

[DireStraitsFTW]

Well ok, in my view it's not fair to punish somebody for the same thing twice. Does anybody disagree with this?

That's precisely the problem I was identifying. Many christians look in the bible see a verse about homosexuals being condemned and apply it to the real world. Do you not agree that the struggle for equal gay/lesbian rights would be much further along if it wasn't for the opposition of the church? I don't know what your position on the matter is but it's my understanding that the catholic church is opposed to equal rights.

If someone did something bad enough as to not be forgiven by God (as Confession is designed to do for minor sins) then I do not care in the least that they be punished more than once.

Marriage is inherently religious, therefore, despite government benefits, they have the right in my opinion to reject it to whomever they so desire. I have nothing against homosexuals, but I do believe in the sanctity of marriage.

Now, civil unions, I am fully for. It is the same thing under a different name, which is a steady compromise to both parties.

This is probably my most controversial view when it comes to religious doctrine, and I hope no one will think badly of me as a result of it.

 

[GoodKat]

If everyone agrees that 'sinners' will be punished after they die, it is no longer fair to punish them while they are here.

Perhaps a perfect religion would punish you later only for things that you weren't sufficiently punished for in life, I would also think that the best entity to deliver this punishment would be a sort of force or natural law.

 

[Aught3]

Perhaps a perfect religion would punish you later only for things that you weren't sufficiently punished for in life, I would also think that the best entity to deliver this punishment would be a sort of force or natural law.

How would a natural law or force know what had been designated as a law or rule?

 

[GoodKat]

How would a natural law or force know what had been designated as a law or rule?

I don't think such a thing would deal with legality anyway, the force would have to have its own self-contained moral law.

 

[Aught3]

^oh all right, we're talking about different things then.

 

[GoodKat]

^oh all right, we're talking about different things then.

I'm thinking of something like karma. Perhaps the rule should be, if you do something bad, you will be punished sufficiently for your action not to be worth taking.

 

[WolfAU]

As a partial Deist/Gnostic, I would say belief in a higher power has some merit. My logic is as follows; Believing in the God of Christian, Judaic or Islamic scripture (including creation myths and religious hierachy) is foolishness. Their beliefs are contradictory, barbaric and to some degree self refuting. Believing in the existance of a God who has their traits (all knowing, all powerful, all loving etc) is also highly problematic. Believing in possibility of a higher power, to me has merit (though it depends what you do with that belief).

That said I do not consider there to be an abundance of evidence to support such a claim, nor do I presume to know God's will (what he wants, if he hears prayers, if he gives a damn what I want etc), making the beliefs largely undefined, benign and somewhat irrelevent.

Arguing what science cannot disprove is missing the point of science entirely.