Can evidence lead to belief in god(s)?

[Argenta]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

[McCulloch]

Suppose you start with the question, "Is the universe its own explanation?" In this case, the default answer seems to be, "No, the universe appears to be contingent--there must be something more to explain it."

You mean, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

That made me more open to the possibility of God. And when I finally read the Bible for myself, as an adult, it seemed true to me, and so I became a Christian. Since that time I have read and studied various other religions and philosophies, and I haven't ever found anything more true than the Bible.

I personally find that somewhat difficult to believe. What kind of basis did you use to compare the other religions and philosophies with the Bible?

[EduChris]

...I have read and studied various other religions and philosophies, and I haven't ever found anything more true than the Bible.

I personally find that somewhat difficult to believe. What kind of basis did you use to compare the other religions and philosophies with the Bible?

What do you find hard to believe? That I studied various other religions and philosophies, or that, having done so, I never found anything more true than the Bible?

The short answer is that I've read numerous books on comparative religions, including works by adherents and scholars of their respective religions. I've also studied Islam at the graduate level from a Christian convert from Islam who was raised in Pakistan by a Muslim father and a Hindu mother.

In terms of why I find all of the others lacking in comparison to Christianity, here is the short answer. I have a hard time thinking of Buddhism as a full-fledged religion at all. To me it's more of a philosophy than anything, and the good parts are not incompatible with Christianity. I enjoy reading the Hindu sacred stories, but Hinduism falls flat with its caste system and with its oscillating universe and with its reincarnation. Islam fails on account of its immoral and self-aggrandizing founder, in addition to the triteness and cookie-cutter portrayal of its various Qur'anic "prophets." Judaism to me is "Judaism without a Messiah" and Christianity is "Judaism with a Messiah."

Ultimately, Judeo-Christianity is the only faith tradition which presents a God who is worthy of admiration, the only God who cares enough about us to become human, to suffer the effects of human sin in solidarity with us. No other God has earned the right to judge me or forgive me.

[JoeyKnothead]

...Maybe I’ve missed something...

Your website, www.gift-lists.com, seems to be missing something. What's up with that?

There's an errant comma in the link, go to this'n.

Fair warning: it has some rude language like "w*dding" and "m*rried" on it.

[EduChris]

...one cannot argue a deity is a simpler explanation than a natural explanation because we don’t have a natural explanation to compare it with...

Are you saying that there is no positive evidence for the 'no god' hypothesis?

...There's an errant comma in the link, go to this'n...

I got to the link. When I made my first comment about it, Argenta had made only her first post and hadn't responded. The link made me wonder if she was a spambot for that website, which obviously turned out not to be the case.

[Argenta]

... I realized that the universe couldn't be its own explanation.

How do you know that?...

Basically, I decided that the sum total of all things contingent would be unlikely to be non-contingent. The word "know" is a misnomer, though, since it was just a gut instinct.

This is an argument from ignorance isn’t it?

1. The universe exists
2. I (EduChris) can’t see how the universe can be its own explanation
3. Therefore, something outside the universe must have caused it to exist. We will call this God.

This is simply invalid logic:
Premise 1. is agreed.
Premise 2. is a fact about EduChris, not about the universe, so does not contribute to the argument.
The conclusion is unwarranted from premise 1. Alone.

You could overcome this objection by changing premise 2. to “It is impossible for the universe to be its own explanation.� But then you would have the very difficult task of demonstrating this to be true...

(By the way, it does not help to make premise 2. “It is very unlikely that the universe could be its own explanation.� I’m sure you can see why.)

So if I can summarise your journey (correct me if I’m wrong anywhere), based on your gut feeling derived from the fallacious logic above, you felt “open to the possibility of God�. From here you read the Bible and it “seemed true� to you so you became a Christian. Honestly, EduChris, it does seem a flimsy basis on which to embrace a worldview. Especially one that makes such extraordinary claims as a virgin birth, resurrection, angels, heaven, hell and so on. Carl Sagan was fond of saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence�, but you don’t have extraordinary evidence do you?

If we go back to basics, Christianity cannot be true if Yahweh does not exist, yet your reasons for believing that Yahweh does exist are seriously flawed. Is it time to re-think?

Argenta

[Argenta]

...one cannot argue a deity is a simpler explanation than a natural explanation because we don’t have a natural explanation to compare it with...

Are you saying that there is no positive evidence for the 'no god' hypothesis?

I don’t have a “no god� hypothesis, so I don’t need any evidence. I am simply unconvinced by your god hypothesis. Give me evidence with sound logic and I’ll believe it. I am open to changing my mind about almost anything.

Argenta

[EduChris]

...Christianity cannot be true if Yahweh does not exist, yet your reasons for believing that Yahweh does exist are seriously flawed. Is it time to re-think?...

I am always re-thinking, and I don't think that extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence. The fact is, there isn't much objective evidence for the "God hypothesis" or for the "No-god hypothesis." What we do in such cases of insufficient evidence is either throw up our hands and say, "I must remain immobilized in my thinking," or else we examine each hypothesis to see where it leads. In my case, subjectively I see that the "No-god hypothesis" leads to nowhere--it is an uninteresting and unfruitful hypothesis. On the other hand, the "God hypothesis" opens the door for hope. As I proceed tentatively along that hopeful path, I compare the various religious traditions, and I find that one of them makes sense and is worthy of my trust.

I don't claim that everyone who examines the matter will adopt the same approach or conclusions as I do. But we all take a leap of faith at some point, since none of us seems to possess objective truth on anything.

[Argenta]

...Maybe I’ve missed something...

Your website, www.gift-lists.com, seems to be missing something. What's up with that?

There's an errant comma in the link, go to this'n.

OK, I see the issue. Gift-lists.com is a non-commercial website I built for my family and friends but anyone is free to use it. If a link of this type infringes any rules I'll happily delete it. Perhaps a moderator would let me know.

Fair warning: it has some rude language like "w*dding" and "m*rried" on it.

This looks like a joke but in the absence of a smiley, I wonder...?

Argenta

[Argenta]

...I don't think that extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence.

Under what circumstances might an extraordinary claim not require extraordinary evidence?

The fact is, there isn't much objective evidence for the "God hypothesis" or for the "No-god hypothesis." What we do in such cases of insufficient evidence is either throw up our hands and say, "I must remain immobilized in my thinking," or else we examine each hypothesis to see where it leads. In my case, subjectively I see that the "No-god hypothesis" leads to nowhere--it is an uninteresting and unfruitful hypothesis. On the other hand, the "God hypothesis" opens the door for hope. As I proceed tentatively along that hopeful path, I compare the various religious traditions, and I find that one of them makes sense and is worthy of my trust.�

This is a very interesting comment which merits a little unpicking.

there isn't much objective evidence for the "God hypothesis"

True and, incidentally, subjective evidence can be shown to be highly unreliable. (Actually, I doubt there is any evidence for the "God hypothesis.)

…or for the “No-god hypothesis.�

but none is required. I, at least, have not proposed a “No-god hypothesis�.

What we do in such cases of insufficient evidence is either throw up our hands and say, "I must remain immobilized in my thinking," or else we examine each hypothesis to see where it leads.

This is a false dichotomy. The rational thing is not to believe a hypothesis until it’s adequately supported. In the meantime, far from being “immobilised� we can search for evidence to support any possible hypotheses.

On the other hand, the "God hypothesis" opens the door for hope.

What has “hope� got to do with the truth or falsity of a hypothesis? Could it ever be reasonable to say, “Hypothesis A is more likely to be true than hypothesis B because it offers greater hope�? If you get to this stage in your thinking you have abandoned reason for emotion. And this is exactly what you have done.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with that and I wouldn’t criticise you for it. But you should be honest and tell people that your belief in Christianity is based on emotion and not reason. That’s all.

Argenta

[Flail]

Hello everyone. I’m Argenta and this is my first post.

I stopped believing in deities before I was old enough to buy cigarettes but I have ever since wondered why so many smart people do sincerely believe in one god or another. I have considered the evidence theists present to support their beliefs but have only been able to conclude there is no evidence. None at all. I have searched for the arguments theists present to justify their beliefs and found fallacies in them all.

Maybe I’ve missed something.

So my proposition for debate is that belief in gods serves to satisfy emotional needs and apologetics serve to post-rationalise such beliefs. Am I right or can any theists point to the evidence or arguments that genuinely converted them to belief in god(s)?

Argenta

Welcome Argenta. I am in agreement with your analysis. There is no evidence of God, at least none that is credible and verifiable. There is even less support for belief in a 'particular God', which in my view is produced by indoctrination into a specific 'group think', supported by ritual practices. It appears that the selection of a particular God has more to do with the happenstance of birth place than anything evidential.