Convince me

[GrayAngel]

Hi everyone,
I'm an atheist, but I've always wondered: why do other people believe?
What are your arguments for a divine being? I'd like to know just so I can have a more profound understanding of religion.

Thanks

I believe for many reasons. One of those reasons is that it just makes more sense.

Somebody already mentioned the origins argument. Everything must have a beginning, including our universe. It has not always existed. But how could a world like ours just pop out of thin air? If things really worked that way, then we'd be seeing big bangs happening all around the place, with no apparent pattern to explain them. But instead, our universe supposedly stopped at one, creating all of the energy that currently exists in the universe. That simply doesn't happen.

Something must be able to account for the beginning of the universe. It would have to be something of equal or greater power to the initial explosion that threw everything into place. Now, while there probably is a set amount of energy in the universe, as far as we know there are no walls surrounding the edge of it. That means that the universe is infinite. What could be equal or greater than infinity?

In addition, in order for the world to continue to exist must require some kind of power outside of itself. What's to stop the world from popping out of existence just as quickly as it came into it? The world requires a power source to keep it running.

And how do we explain the laws that characterize our orderly universe, as opposed to the chaos that could just as easily exist? What tells the universe to behave the way it does? The fact that an electron circles a neutron is not a logical necessity, yet it does so anyway, and this is required for the world to function the way it does. Only a conscious mind could design such laws for the world to live by, and only a mind that possesses infinite power could enforce those laws on the universe to make it obey.

Some will ask, "If the world can't have come from nothing, then where did God come from?" The simple answer is that God didn't come from anywhere. He just is. The reason why the world needs to have a beginning is because we know it hasn't always been around, and also because it is changing. Everything that changes needs a starting point to begin. But God is always the same, never changing, so He could logically exist as the starting point for everything else.

He also doesn't view time the same way we do. We live day by day, from one moment to the next. But God knew all of history right from the start. At this moment, He simultaneously views our future 2,000 years from now, 2,000 years in our past, and our present moment. Even before time (progress) has yet to exist, God could function perfectly well.

I also have several personal reasons for believing. To name just one, I shouldn't even exist. My grandmother was clinically diagnosed to be incapable of having children, but then she and my grandfather prayed for healing and she had four children. One of those children became my father.

 

[Tolerant Skeptic]

Many theories have been composed for why people believe, and why religion even came to exist at all. A common belief by some is that is invented purely for means of control, though that does no justice to explain how blind faith with no evidence came to be so pervasive, so alternative theories seem to provide better answers. One probable theory is that it was evolved as a means of promoting social unity and harmonous living amongst a small tribe, whilst building extreme antagonism to competing tribes. The proposal that it is a defensive mechanism also seems fairly reasonable, much as the elderly are stricken with extreme nostalgia near the end of their lives, constantly talking about "the good old days". Our brains do this to keep our minds off of our awaiting demise, as focusing on such thoughts are enough to drive many insane. That would explain why the theory of an afterlife is almost univsersal, with the fear of death driving the force.

Enough of all this though. You wanted to know why people believe today, not the psyhcological evolution behind it. I would say that the psychological factors that caused it in the past are just as powerful today, but if you want more simplistic answers that don't envolve delving into evolutionary psychology, then I would say pressure from society to confine to social norms, indoctrination, and lack of education are primarily what are promoting it today. Studies have shown that generally the less educated a population is, the more religious it is. I am sorry if such comments affend some on here, as I am sure they did, but this has been shown countless times. This isn't to say that there aren't any smart theists out there, but a negative correlation has been found between the quality of education recieved and the religious devotion of the populace.

Now to answer the questions of the theists on this thread. I saw at least one person actually highlighted an important point that I believe they actually intended to be evidence against secular creation beliefs. They discussed the belief that the universe has always existed. Now, science still does not know much about what happened before the beginning, with that being the hottest topic amongst cosmologists and quite a few astro-physicists and theoritical physicists. One thing we do know however is that the universe most certainly existed before time did. Time only came to exist following the big bang, thus we must observe how, and if, one could create time. We do know that time is not constant, and that spacetime is continiously warped, though we don't quite know to the extent this process undergoes. Many theories have come about as to how all of this occurred, with my personal favorite for quite some time being the Steinhardt-Turok Model, a cyclic model of universe representing an inifinite number of big bangs and big crunches caused by contious expansion and retraction set about by the decaying of dark matter and the collisions with parallel universes proposed by M theory, though recent evidence seems to be supporting infinite expansion theories more recently, so yet again science may be forced to adapt as it always does. Still, the primary issue highlighted is one scientists actually are generally coming to agree on, and in fact, are starting to actually question in the inverse. Why would the universe not exist? It exists, so obviously existence is the natural state of things. Otherwise, nothing would exist.

Now one bit of "evidence" that I have seen time and time again is how "impossible" and "improbable" spontaneous generation of the universe is, and that a deity whose existense is supposed to be more probable than spontaneous generation is the obvious solution. Yes, the universe is certainly complex, and it is amazing that such a complex thing would be able to arise on its own. What I must ask you though is this. Which is more complex, the universe, or something strong enough to create the universe? Throughing a deity into the equation requires even more explaining than spontaneous generation does. It is a groundless theory that I cannot even begin to understand the rationalization of. Some of you have even adressed the question of where this deity came from, stating it was always there. Why is it acceptable for have spontaneously existed, or the even more baffling theory that it created itself, acceptable, while the spontaneous generation of the universe isn't? Furthermore, even if you don't believe the universe could have "simply formed", why is a god the only solution available for this? You try to make one theory seem impossible or improbable, but then use the supposed improbability of one theory as evidence for your own theory, even though you still have no other source of evidence to back your own theory up. It is like saying "since the Earth is not the center of the universe, it obviously concludes that my theory that there is a giant dragon in the center of the universe is correct".

Furthermore, why support the existence of the Abramic God over Brahmen for example? Hinduism existed long before Judaism did, so it seems like the earlier religion would probably be more likely to be correct. Better yet, go back further to the Mesopotamians. They were some of the earliest recorded civilizations, so I'd personally be looking there if I wanted records from the beginning of time. I suppose though that we still must consider that billions of years after the birth of a planet is a long time to wait before starting to talk with your creations, but I suppose the locals back in the Triassic weren't very keen on the thing.

Yet again, I do apologize for any offense I caused, though I do believe that many, if not most on here, simply spout out what they've been told without really thinking about it. I accept that I could be wrong, but I can at least say that I've taken the time to think through it all. I believe most of you are intelligent people that are simply saying what you've been raised to say, but that is why I am hoping that you can patiently consider what I've said without simply calling me a blasphemer and leaving it at that.

 

[lucaspa]

Hi everyone,
I'm an atheist, but I've always wondered: why do other people believe?
What are your arguments for a divine being? I'd like to know just so I can have a more profound understanding of religion.

Thanks

(Don't know if this is the right subforum, i'm sorry if it's misplaced)

First, there are 2 questions in science that will get you to the possibility of deity:
1. Why does the universe exist? Possible answer: deity created it
2. Why does the universe have the order it does instead of some other order? Possible answer: deity chose this order.

After that, it comes down to evidence. That evidence is ultimately personal experience of deity, either written down in scripture or experienced directly by people. This is what I mean by personal experience:

"Therefore, before proceeding further, we shall give the floor temporarily to those who claim they have experiential evidence of God, and allow them to clarify what they mean by such evidence. ... However, when it comes to the nature of experience of the presence of God, there is an astounding degree of consensus. The following statements, in order to keep us as close to the source as possible, come not from the past but from our contemporaries, from persons with whom I have spoken directly. They are, however, echoed throughout the history and literature of religion.
"The experience is usually not 'spooky'. It sometimes, though definitely not always, might be termed 'mystical'. It doesn't for the most part consist of events which by their nature overturn or challenge the laws of science. (I've heard only one first-hand account of an event which, if it really happened, would be very difficult to explain by any process presently known to science.) The experience doesn't establish a hot-line to God, by which all questions are answered, all doubts set aside, and complete understanding is reached. ... People are quick to point out that, though they think their experience really is of God, it is, even at its clearest and best, only a partial, human, inadequate view of what God really is and what God is really doing. Experiential evidence sometimes comes in a flash, but it's more often the accumulation of more subtle experiences over a period of time.
"John S. Spong .... 'I do not mean to suggest that I have arrived at some mystical plateau where my search has ended, where doubts are no more, or that I now possess some unearthly peace of mind. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have only arrived at a point where the search has a validity because I have tasted the reality of this presence, if ever so slightly.'
"As to finding God initially, some say they came rather gradually to a realization that the God they'd learned about in books, songs, and from other people, is real. Others on the contrary battered the gates of heaven .. with very sceptical demands for answers, IF such a heaven existed. Their uncompromising intellectuality led them to try to pin God to the wall in ways that might be expected to elicit a lightning bolt rather than blessing. Their requirements for evidence and proofs were seldom met exactly as specified, but there was a moment in the process when they realized to their astonishment that they were wrestling with a real being who couldn't be contained in human descriptions or standards, not a concept or an abstraction. This God was something out of their control, something not fashioned in the image they had formed in their mind ...
"The testimony is of God's leadership being requested and and received at turning points where human foresight and knowledge were inadequate, and of God's leadership turning out to be exactly on target, though perhaps not in the direction one would have preferred. ... God has stopped some persons dead, when they did not want to be stopped, on the brink of serious mistakes. God has changes some in ways human beings can't change themselves even with allthe help of psychotherapy. God has made it possible for them to love the unlovable, forgive the unforgiveable. ... Has all this been 'spritual' help? Not according to these witnesses. God is a powerful and active God, interveining wherever, whenever, and through whatever avenue he pleases. The phrase 'the insidiousness of God' comes from a woman Episcopal priest. God's intervention is not always kind, gentle, or pleasurable. He refuses to play by human rules or indulge our desire to plan ahead. ... God does not always come at our calling, give us what we want, or even shield us from terrible pain or grief ... but God's forgiveness and love know no limits whatsoever.
"Some direct quotes: 'My relationship with God has been by far and away the most demanding relationship in my life." "The Lord has been my strongest support, but also my most frustrating opponent." 'If I didn't absolutely know this is the only game in town, I'd sure as hell get out of it!' "The best evidence isn't some 'wonder' or 'miracle', and it certainly isn't success, happiness, or the peace of having my prayers answered in ways which suit me. It's the extraordinary, topsy-turvy, interesting course my life has taken since I've engaged in this -- once begun, virtually inescapable -- dialogue with God." Kitty Ferguson's The Fire in the Equations, pp 248- 251

 

[lucaspa]

One probable theory is that it was evolved as a means of promoting social unity and harmonous living amongst a small tribe, whilst building extreme antagonism to competing tribes.

That doesn't seem "probable" to me. There are many and effective means of building unity without resorting to deity. Sports teams do it all the time. So do the various militaries. Tried adn true methods. What you need are shared experiences. Actually, I would think just putting in a crop, tending it, and getting a harvest would do. Or hunting mammoths. Much more dangerous than sports but requiring teamwork and social unity.

You are omitting another very reasonable alternative: people have personal experience of deity. THAT would convince anyone. Also, note that the ability (brain architecture) to have this ability would provide a selective advantage: advice, consolation with grief, advance warning of dangers, etc. So the original variation that made this possible would spread thru the population. That explains the 10% or so of atheists and agnostics today: they are unlucky in not inheriting the variation and therefore are incapable of having personal experience of deity. Basically, the variation has yet to become "fixed" in the population.

 

[GrayAngel]

Many theories have been composed for why people believe, and why religion even came to exist at all. A common belief by some is that is invented purely for means of control, though that does no justice to explain how blind faith with no evidence came to be so pervasive, so alternative theories seem to provide better answers. One probable theory is that it was evolved as a means of promoting social unity and harmonous living amongst a small tribe, whilst building extreme antagonism to competing tribes. The proposal that it is a defensive mechanism also seems fairly reasonable, much as the elderly are stricken with extreme nostalgia near the end of their lives, constantly talking about "the good old days". Our brains do this to keep our minds off of our awaiting demise, as focusing on such thoughts are enough to drive many insane. That would explain why the theory of an afterlife is almost univsersal, with the fear of death driving the force.

Enough of all this though. You wanted to know why people believe today, not the psyhcological evolution behind it. I would say that the psychological factors that caused it in the past are just as powerful today, but if you want more simplistic answers that don't envolve delving into evolutionary psychology, then I would say pressure from society to confine to social norms, indoctrination, and lack of education are primarily what are promoting it today. Studies have shown that generally the less educated a population is, the more religious it is. I am sorry if such comments affend some on here, as I am sure they did, but this has been shown countless times. This isn't to say that there aren't any smart theists out there, but a negative correlation has been found between the quality of education recieved and the religious devotion of the populace.

Now to answer the questions of the theists on this thread. I saw at least one person actually highlighted an important point that I believe they actually intended to be evidence against secular creation beliefs. They discussed the belief that the universe has always existed. Now, science still does not know much about what happened before the beginning, with that being the hottest topic amongst cosmologists and quite a few astro-physicists and theoritical physicists. One thing we do know however is that the universe most certainly existed before time did. Time only came to exist following the big bang, thus we must observe how, and if, one could create time. We do know that time is not constant, and that spacetime is continiously warped, though we don't quite know to the extent this process undergoes. Many theories have come about as to how all of this occurred, with my personal favorite for quite some time being the Steinhardt-Turok Model, a cyclic model of universe representing an inifinite number of big bangs and big crunches caused by contious expansion and retraction set about by the decaying of dark matter and the collisions with parallel universes proposed by M theory, though recent evidence seems to be supporting infinite expansion theories more recently, so yet again science may be forced to adapt as it always does. Still, the primary issue highlighted is one scientists actually are generally coming to agree on, and in fact, are starting to actually question in the inverse. Why would the universe not exist? It exists, so obviously existence is the natural state of things. Otherwise, nothing would exist.

Now one bit of "evidence" that I have seen time and time again is how "impossible" and "improbable" spontaneous generation of the universe is, and that a deity whose existense is supposed to be more probable than spontaneous generation is the obvious solution. Yes, the universe is certainly complex, and it is amazing that such a complex thing would be able to arise on its own. What I must ask you though is this. Which is more complex, the universe, or something strong enough to create the universe? Throughing a deity into the equation requires even more explaining than spontaneous generation does. It is a groundless theory that I cannot even begin to understand the rationalization of. Some of you have even adressed the question of where this deity came from, stating it was always there. Why is it acceptable for have spontaneously existed, or the even more baffling theory that it created itself, acceptable, while the spontaneous generation of the universe isn't? Furthermore, even if you don't believe the universe could have "simply formed", why is a god the only solution available for this? You try to make one theory seem impossible or improbable, but then use the supposed improbability of one theory as evidence for your own theory, even though you still have no other source of evidence to back your own theory up. It is like saying "since the Earth is not the center of the universe, it obviously concludes that my theory that there is a giant dragon in the center of the universe is correct".

Furthermore, why support the existence of the Abramic God over Brahmen for example? Hinduism existed long before Judaism did, so it seems like the earlier religion would probably be more likely to be correct. Better yet, go back further to the Mesopotamians. They were some of the earliest recorded civilizations, so I'd personally be looking there if I wanted records from the beginning of time. I suppose though that we still must consider that billions of years after the birth of a planet is a long time to wait before starting to talk with your creations, but I suppose the locals back in the Triassic weren't very keen on the thing.

Yet again, I do apologize for any offense I caused, though I do believe that many, if not most on here, simply spout out what they've been told without really thinking about it. I accept that I could be wrong, but I can at least say that I've taken the time to think through it all. I believe most of you are intelligent people that are simply saying what you've been raised to say, but that is why I am hoping that you can patiently consider what I've said without simply calling me a blasphemer and leaving it at that.

You're new here, so maybe you didn't know. Only Christians are allowed to reply to threads in this sub-forum, which is why it's called Exploring Christianity. Non-Christians ask questions and Christians answer them. The philosophy section allows for open debate on topics like these.

 

[firstpetertwonine]

You want us to summarize the entire worldview system in which we live our lives, in a single internet post?

Aw heck, why not. LOL

Why am I a believing Christian? I will openly admit, because I was raised as one. That's how it started, I won't lie and pretend like it's an adult decision I came to.

But, I did investigate, intellectually, as an adult, what I was taught as a child, and can say why I continue to believe it.

"Cosmological argument for the existence of God" - Google that. That's why I believe in the existence of a creator.

"Argument for the existence of God from Beauty"
"Argument for the existence of God from Love"
"Argument for the existence of God from Miracles" (as in, the experiences of billions of humans throughout history that have claimed to experience the divine/supernatural/miracles - they can't all be crazy)
"Argument for the existence of God from Consciousness"

- Google those. I find those sufficient arguments to believe that whatever creative force created the universe, that force wants to have personal relations with humanity, and is not Deistic/removed/impersonal.

Now, once I believe there's a creator of some kind and he/she/it/they wants to have relations with humanity, it's reasonable to conclude that there is truth about this creator to be found in the epic religions of the world, because the creator wants us to find him/her/it/them. I can't take time to compare those religions all individually here. Suffice it to say that regardless of what some well-meaning, politically correct people will say who don't want to offend anyone, the world's Big 5 religions (largest by membership, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism) most certainly do not all lead to the same God, they have very different teachings about who God is and what the correct path is to find Him. So compare them and ask who has the strongest ground upon which to base why they say what they say, and I can't get around:

"Historical arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus"

- Google that. You can't prove how a miracle happens, that's what makes it a miracle. But you can argue that a miracle happened, even if you don't know how. Based on the Resurrection, I can't find any other faith (that I've heard of) with stronger claims as to why I should listen to what they have to say about God.

If Jesus really rose from the dead, proving He is who He says He is, I can trust what He has to say. I can then trust the Christian Bible because Jesus preached and believed in the OT, and He taught the disciples who wrote the NT.

So, there ya have it. (puts flame suit on, LOL)

 

[hedrick]

Let me take a different approach to existence. What is the basic thing like? As far as I can see, there is not currently clear evidence for anything beyond the current universe. I agree with you that most likely there is some larger system out of which universes come, but there are lots of ideas, and not much clear evidence for any of it. There's some suggestion of long-term entropy problems with a cyclical universe. But somehow I think few of us are happy with the idea of a big bang coming out of no other context at all.

So most likely there's some underlying system beyond the universe. Now, is it completely impersonal? I think some of the more interesting evidence is debatable. The fine tuning argument is most convincing only if this is the only universe. I'm skeptical. The role of the observer in quantum mechanics is interesting, but there are too many interpretations of quantum mechanics to be sure on that one.

However one argument I've never heard made is to ask how likely it is that a meta-universe from which ours came would be lifeless? I really wonder about that. If our current universe evolved life in a few billion years, you'd think a probably infinite metauniverse would have managed to do so. And given the properties of infinity, that probably means that the life was there all the time. I'd claim that life that has existed for an infinite amount of time in a context that generates universes would be likely to have the properties we think of in God. And this argument is based on the conservative assumption, ignoring the possibility that the role of a conscious observer might be essential to reality.

Christians haven't looked very much at God's actual nature, largely because we simply have no perspective that would let us do that. Classically, God's nature was considered unknowable. But I don't see anything in our idea of God that is inconsistent with him existing in some set of dimensions with some basic principles.

 

[hedrick]

The OP asked why people believe in God. I think the answer is pretty clear: we believe in God like we believe in everything else: because that's what our parents and our culture teach us. The number of people who invent whole new ways of looking at thing is small.

But of course people do sometimes change beliefs from their parents. The best treatments of conversion I've seen say that people typically adopt beliefs from friends and others around them, and they do so because they like the way their friends live.

And of course beliefs do change over time, and new ones arise. But whether they are adopted depends partly upon whether there's any evidence, partly on how lives based on the new principles look, and partly upon institutional factors such as whether key institutions find reasons to promote the beliefs. There surely are institutional reasons in many cases. Saying that religion exists purely to let leaders control people is *way* oversimplified. But it's also clear that the interests of leaders do affect things. E.g. the Reformation happened in part because the new civic leaders considered the Catholic Church to be too much in bed with the monarchies. Note however that this argument cuts both ways. There have been a number of cases where leaders have found Christianity inconvenient, because having God as an authority challenges their own. Hence communist movements tend to be atheist, and other high-control movements have opposed or manipulated religion in one way or another.

Whereever religion as a whole comes from, we know pretty well where Christianity came from. It came from Jesus, both his teachings and his death and resurrection. You can make a plausible case that the resurrection didn't happen as recorded, though I think there's also a good case that it did. But no conspiracies are required to explain people believing it. Rodney Stark's books on Church history seem to me to be reasonable analyses of why Christianity spread. It spread because it led to attractive lives, and it seemed like the best primary value system of any around. I won't give you the details, but looking at the early church and the other systems at the time, I would agree. Of course this assessment meant also that people found both OT accounts and those of Jesus' life plausible. But at the time there's no reason they shouldn't have.

Things don't become difficult until the Enlightenment. We now operate under different assumptions as to what is plausible and what kind of evidence is acceptable. But most of the factors are the same: parents and friends still have a large influence, as does the apparent quality of Christian lives. And there's no reason these things shouldn't have an effect. In many ways Christian, atheism, and other systems function like systems of axioms. You can't derive everything from something else. There has to be a set of basic assumptions. About the only way you can evaluate a set of axioms is to see if they're plausible, but mostly, whether a system built on them is useful.

On the intellectual side, I think the evidence is OK. I don't find very conservative arguments very convincing. They try to prove too much, and end up not proving anything. But the more moderate folks like N T Wright seem pretty reasonable. In particular, his analysis of the resurrection seems right. You can't prove historically that it happened, but it's reasonably plausible. Unless you just plain won't accept any explanation that involves miracles. I tend to be on the skeptical side myself, but I think that's taking skepticism just a bit too far.

For a moderate Christian like me, I think the explanation is kind of cumulative:
* The New Testament accounts seem pretty plausible historically. (The OT is more complex.)
* The prophets and Jesus seem to be genuine advancements in human values.
* The Christian account of people seems to offer the best basis for living that I've seen: that we are responsible but imperfect people, designed to live in community and responsible to God. Note that the Christianity I'm referring to is mainline Protestantism. I have real problems both with Catholicism and conservative Protestantism, both in terms of consistency with evidence and the results for living.
* What we know from science seems consistent with someone like God existing, though I don't think it provides unambiguous evidence for it.
* A lot of us feel a guidance from beyond. Obviously we're interpreting something pretty subjective from a Christian understanding. But still, atheism seems to me to involve writing off too much of life as illusion.

I don't feel compelled to reject everything taught by other religions. Of the 3 Abrahamic religions, Christianity seems like the most advanced. Of the others, I find Buddhism attractive in some ways. I don't see any reason to deny that the Buddha has some real insights. But there's a reason science came from Islam and Christianity. The eastern view of the world doesn't seem quite as sensible to me.

 

[NowIBelieve]

I'm new to the forums and for some strange reason I wanted to read the bible. I never had anything positive to say about the teachings of the lord. I grew up a christian but rarely did I ever go to church nor did my parents or anybody around me made it a priority to study the bible. Reading short verses here and there didn't count. Now that I've read the entire text...I just want to profess my love for Jesus. I'm not ashamed to say this but I cried after finishing reading the bible. I was giving signs my whole life in which I ignored...due to my own ignorance. At 23, I'm glad I finally woke up.