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

[LiamOS]

Welcome, Luke.

I am not saying that Argenta is stupid but any one who is smart/well educated people do not believe in a god.

As first posts go, this is a bit out there.

I can think of innumerable examples of people, but I'll let you find out here first hand that there are people who are almost certainly more intelligent and better educated than you who believe in a God.

Also the idea that a god serves to satisfy emotional needs is ridiculous due to the turmoil that it puts people through when they have " sinned " and weather on there death bed they will be deemed a good enough religious nut to get into eternial bliss.

This is a generalisation onto religions who believe in an afterlife. If one's God is impartial to what you do, why would it put you through any turmoil?

Further, that something causes turmoil on occasion is no reason that it would not be emotionally preferable on average. Having a girlfriend is a pain when the moon is in that phase and when you break up with her, but I don't think that entirely negates everything one might deem positive about having one.

[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

I am not saying that Argenta is stupid but any one who is smart/well educated people do not believe in a god. Also the idea that a god serves to satisfy emotional needs is ridiculous due to the turmoil that it puts people through when they have " sinned " and weather on there death bed they will be deemed a good enough religious nut to get into eternial bliss.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt Luke. It is obviously true that many smart and well educated people believe in God. There are many examples. I'll just mention brothers Christopher and Peter Hitchens. Both very smart, both well-educated. One is an atheist and the other a devout Christian. On this forum, EduChris and mgb are theists but, clearly, both are smart.

Since there is no objective evidence for the existence of any gods, it is interesting to speculate why such people can be convinced gods exist. That was the point of my OP. If such people don't believe for emotional reasons, why do you think they do believe?

There are many different emotional needs that belief in gods could satisfy (affiliation, affection, purpose, existential, security etc). Perhaps, we'll get into that later in this thread. I tend to think that our brains (for many people at least) categorise religious belief as a preference. You can hardly call someone stupid for preferring chocolate rather than vanilla. Of course, in reality there either are gods or there are not but one could still like the idea of there being gods.

I do agree that some people are tormented by fear of hell, either for themselves or their loved ones, but many seem to convince themselves that they will be OK or that this is a bit of theology that can be safely ignored. People are very good are rationalising their religion to fit their life-styles. I suspect that is the only way religions can survive in a changing world. Reality defeats dogma.

Argenta

[Argenta]

...His [eduChris’] alternative approach is to accept axiomatically that god exists (justified in his view because this leads to greater hope for mankind than to deny that god exists) and then to “test� the axiom by living as though god does exist. Evidence gathered in this way will either confirm or disconfirm the axiom...

This probably comes as close to an accurate summarization as anything else you've written. However, you are neglecting the subjective part. I experience God as real, and so I cannot doubt God's existence and God's love. And I am far from alone with these subjective feelings. Many people--billions of people--have such subjective feelings. People who lack such experience will probably tend to explain those feelings by reference to some psychological quirk, but such folks are on the outside looking in, so to speak, and there is no reason why their (second-hand) interpretations should get priority over any first-hand interpretations.

... I don't believe in God because of evidence in this sense (although it is supportive of my beliefs). I believe in God because I know God. For me God is a person I am aware of.

I was once a very lukewarm atheist of sorts and I developed an interest in the question of God. I experienced almost a compulsion to answer this question and thought very intensely about it for some time. But I did not 'figure out' the answer in intellectual terms. God just came to me and I knew S/he existed. For me this is evidence.

It seems both EduChris and mgb agree that they cannot justify a belief in God in any objective way but both feel they “experience� God. I would be interested to explore whether personal experience could be a reasonable way to determine that God exists.

Perhaps we could do this in two parts: firstly EduChris and mgb could explain what having a relationship with God feels like. Do you see God? Do you hear God? Are there any other sensory inputs? How often does it happen and under what circumstances?

Secondly, I’d like to understand how you know that God is responsible for these sensations. How can you definitively rule out all other possibilities? For example could it be:
1. An illusion created by your own brain?
2. Associated with foods or other substances you have been exposed to?
3. Associated with magnetic fields?
4. Associated with fatigue, anxiety or other emotions?
5. Another entity (such as Satan or Vishnu) posing as Yahweh?
6. Etc, etc

In asking these questions I am conscious that religious experiences are quite commonplace. In particular, I am aware of Hindus describing profound religious experiences that they are certain come from Vishnu or other Hindu gods. If these gods do not exist then we could conclude that humans are quite capable of having deep, meaningful relationships with non-existent gods.

So my question to EduChris and mgb is how can you be certain what causes the feelings you experience?

Argenta

[Zzyzx]

.
Excellent line of questioning.

I would be interested to explore whether personal experience could be a reasonable way to determine that God exists.

1. EduChris and mgb could explain what having a relationship with God feels like. Do you see God? Do you hear God? Are there any other sensory inputs? How often does it happen and under what circumstances?

2. I’d like to understand how you know that God is responsible for these sensations. How can you definitively rule out all other possibilities?

3. So my question to EduChris and mgb is how can you be certain what causes the feelings you experience?

I look forward to honest and non-evasive answers by proponents of "god-experience".

[Cathar1950]

Welcome to the forum Argenta. I see you have met others.

... we all take a leap of faith at some point, since none of us seems to possess objective truth on anything.

I find this an odd argument. When you boil it down it says:

1. Faith is a flawed epistemological method
2. Both theists and non-theists believe things on faith
3. Therefore both theists and non-theists have flawed thinking

In other words, I might not be smart but neither are you!

But this argument is not just pointless, it is also dishonest. The things I take on faith are only those things that all human beings have to take on faith. Like, I exist; the universe exists in reality and not just in my mind; my feelings are real etc. The list of things I take on faith is very, very short.

Now compare that with the list of things you take on faith. Your list is long and includes many things that are entirely optional.

Argenta

I tend to see it as sophist where he goes from the uncertainty to more uncertainty dismissing what is more certain in the process.
I don’t see how appealing to uncertainty in reality makes the less certain just as valid or reasonable.

He further removes the availability of further quest as in the creation of his false dichotomy he limits himself while the non-theists are still unlimited in options.
It is only in actualizing his hope or faith that he limits it. Not only has he limited his options to a theistic explanation but he has limited it to one theistic explanation among and almost unlimited number of theistic and non-theistic options.

[EduChris]

...Your implied thinking is:

1. God exists
2. God desires humans to have free will
3. Objective evidence of God’s existence would force people to believe that God exists and not allow them to exercise free will.

4. Therefore, God chooses not to give objective evidence of its existence.

If any of the premises 1 - 3 cannot be supported, the conclusion is unwarranted.

Premise 1, cannot be demonstrated but we can overlook this to follow the argument through...

The "God hypothesis" cannot be objectively demonstrated to the satisfaction of all, but it is no less reasonable than the "no-god hypothesis" (and probably even more reasonable).

...Premise2 needs evidence...

The evidence is the common human experience that we have free will. The idea that we are more than mere wind-up dolls is a properly basic belief. The question here is, "Which hypothesis--the 'God hypothesis' or the 'No-god hypothesis' can best account for free will?" Since the "No-god hypothesis" has no theoretical basis to allow for free will, and since the "God hypothesis" does allow for free will, the "God hypothesis" is the better choice.

...Premise 3 is dubious. We have plenty of examples of people being denying objective evidence. Flat-earthers, young earth creationists, evolution-deniers, conspiracy theorists and many, many more show how readily humans exercise their will and ignore objective evidence. So it is cannot true that objective evidence forces humans to believe...

This is a canard. You can always find nuts who believe or disbelieve anything despite the evidence. The point is, if God exists and desired that all people objectively believe in God, all people would believe objectively--but this would nullify our free will to believe or not.

...In any case, if the Bible is to be believed, it is not even true that God seeks to be hidden. Many stories tell of God making his presence known to individuals and groups...

God can reveal himself to some, but even here God does not usually force belief or action. Saying "no" to God is a real option, and people are always free to interpret their experiences of God as some rare psychological quirk. Free will is maintained if God generally chooses to remain unobtrusive.

...I struggle to understand what benefit a god would gain by having people believe without objective evidence?...

The Christian theist view is that God desires a mutual relationship of love with us. Such a relationship could not exist if God were to objectively impose himself on us. We would resent the power imbalance, we would feel coerced. In giving us the opportunity to reject him, God shifts the balance of power, in favor of mutuality, so that we can freely choose to believe in God or not.

[mgb]

In any case, if the Bible is to be believed, it is not even true that God seeks to be hidden. Many stories tell of God making his presence known to individuals and groups.

I should imagine that these individuals consented to be in God's presence. God will not force anyone to look at Him. Consent need not be verbal. Consent is belief in goodness and 'right living', an openess to God. I don't think that God wishes to be hidden but wishes us to find Him. Will answer your other q's later...

[Woland]

The Christian theist view is that God desires a mutual relationship of love with us. Such a relationship could not exist if God were to objectively impose himself on us. We would resent the power imbalance, we would feel coerced. In giving us the opportunity to reject him, God shifts the balance of power, so that we can freely choose to believe in God or not.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with Christian dogma. It seems to somehow prevent its adherents from understanding the very simple fact that people don't CHOOSE to believe whether a specific deity (or ANYTHING or ANYONE) exists or not. Something is either real to someone, or it is NOT.

Christian apologists also pointlessly and unsuccessfully try to justify the evident notion that their god concept is ABSOLUTELY impossible to distinguish from pure imagination or delusion. Just like the other god concepts. Coincidence? Hardly.

If any theist should disagree, I submit that he attempt to make himself believe that Bugs Bunny is the creator of the universe and report his results. This is an adequate comparison: the deity proposed by Christians is no more real to me than the THOUSANDS of others which humans believe and have believed in.

Besides, this whole "god desires a mutual relationship of love with us" theory quickly shows itself to be unevidenced nonsense when you consider the number of people who will never (and have never) even hear about him, AND those die at birth or shortly before/after, etc. To try to make sense of this, theists must make more and more unevidenced claims concerning the supernatural. Not the most convincing form argumentation. If it convinced them, good for them: I reject this fallacious endless-claim-piling for the unreasonable wishful thinking that it obviously is.

Again, if any religionist should doubt that one can defend ANYTHING if one lowers his standards to those of religionism/theology/apologetics, be my guest and ask me to justify/reconcile/defend ANYTHING.

-Woland

[McCulloch]

I should imagine that these individuals consented to be in God's presence.

I have and continue to consent to be in God's presence. I have never to my knowledge, barred or prohibited God from my presence.

God will not force anyone to look at Him.

Now there's an understatement! To my certain knowledge, God has not forced anything on anyone.

Consent need not be verbal. Consent is belief in goodness and 'right living', an openess to God.

Do you then conclude that those who do not see God are only those who believe in evil and wrong living and a mind that is closed to God?

I don't think that God wishes to be hidden but wishes us to find Him.

Then your god is not omnipotent. If God wished me to find him, he has had plenty of opportunity. Yet many people, who I assume are honest seekers after goodness, seem to find so many different versions of god, the gods or no god at all. If your god does not wish to be hidden, he is doing a mighty poor job of not hiding.

[Zzyzx]

.

He further removes the availability of further quest as in the creation of his false dichotomy he limits himself while the non-theists are still unlimited in options.

It is only in actualizing his hope or faith that he limits it. Not only has he limited his options to a theistic explanation but he has limited it to one theistic explanation among and almost unlimited number of theistic and non-theistic options.

EXCELLENT point -- limited options -- confined by theistic beliefs.

Not only does this apply on the philosophical level, but on the personal level as well -- even to include mate selection. A young couple that I know comes to mind -- strongly mismatched and acknowledged to be unhappy -- BUT they "married within the faith" as commanded by their religious group. Both are appealing and pleasant people -- separately. Both could have had numerous alternative choices had they not felt restricted. Now they have two children and feel "trapped" in a marriage that makes them unhappy.

Career choices are also limited or hindered by religious beliefs. In my observation, comparatively few people of Fundamental Christian belief preferences were comfortable entering the fields of natural sciences, particularly Earth science, geology, anthropology, genetics, etc. They may not have considered those fields "off limits", but their religious beliefs often conflicted with study and research in such areas (i.e., Young Earth Creationists and Biblicists / Literalists / Fundamentalists are is unlikely to accept ideas upon which modern geology, anthropology, genetics, etc are based (and thus eliminate themselves). Thus, most (not all) abandon either their earlier beliefs or abandon the field (perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance of believing one thing and practicing another)

This topic seems worthy of a separate thread.

Edited to add: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 105#342105