Why do you need to believe?

[brandx1138]

Why do people feel that they need to believe in something greater than themselves to give their lives a purpose that they can be satisfied with?

Is believing in a "reality" (God/Heaven) for which you have absolutely NO PROOF OF, really all that better than realizing that there is no ULTIMATE purpose to existence? Is tricking yourself to overcome some kind of irrational fear, better than realizing it's irrational and enjoying life for what it actually does offer?

Why do people need an ULTIMATE purpose to life anyway? What does it matter if you are not really the special twinkle in the eye of a magical super-man? Isn't realizing that your purpose is whatever you want it to be better and more honest and more noble and more humbling than believing that you are the special interest of a supernatural father figure in the sky?

[Assent]

What test might that be?

I believe that goat takes issue with which words you chose to replace God. The very definition of Naturalism is that you only regard what can be tested and proven as undeniable. What that leads one to conclude about what is beyond what can be tested and proven is one's own business, and if you had put Atheism in those brackets instead there would be no way to contest it.

And goat, forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe QED's point about the "impenetrable defence" is that it is impossible to test the existence of a higher power which does not interfere with reality.

...and I am thouroughly beaten to the punch! I hope this post still makes sense.

[Fisherking]

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in [strike]God[/strike][Naturalism/Materialism](as [strike]fisherking[/strike][QED] appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge."

A free-floating rationale is one which is not subject to disconfirmation. Is evolution of this nature? Of course not. Evidence that would refute evolution and support biblical genesis has already been predicted but not found.

Sure it has. The "free-floating rationale" of evolutionism takes this evidence and attempts to explain it away under the cloak of "scientific theory" so that it fits into their naturalistic/materialistic axiom, or just wave it away, calling it "psuedoscience" because it does not fit into this axiom.

[Fisherking]

What test might that be?

I believe that goat takes issue with which words you chose to replace God. The very definition of Naturalism is that you only regard what can be tested and proven as undeniable

.
The naturalism which I refer to is a fits quite well actually. The naturalists looks at the evidence and interprets that evidence with naturalism in mind(many times denying they do). The creationists look at the evidence and interprets that evidence with creation in mind.
naturalism
Main Entry: nat·u·ral·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈna-chə-rə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnach-rə-\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1641
1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
3: realism in art or literature; specifically : a theory or practice in literature emphasizing scientific observation of life without idealization and often including elements of determinism

[QED]

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in [strike]God[/strike][Naturalism/Materialism](as [strike]fisherking[/strike][QED] appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge."

A free-floating rationale is one which is not subject to disconfirmation. Is evolution of this nature? Of course not. Evidence that would refute evolution and support biblical genesis has already been predicted but not found.

Sure it has. The "free-floating rationale" of evolutionism takes this evidence and attempts to explain it away under the cloak of "scientific theory" so that it fits into their naturalistic/materialistic axiom, or just wave it away, calling it "psuedoscience" because it does not fit into this axiom.

That doesn't work fisherking. You're committed to calling "evolutionism" a free-floating rationale in order to maintain your mirror-symmetric view of science and religion. But biological evolution is as amenable to scientific investigation as the afterlife isn't.

[Fisherking]

I think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief. If somebody believes that the "existence of everything" merits a belief in [strike]God[/strike][Naturalism/Materialism](as [strike]fisherking[/strike][QED] appears to do) then they have simply taken cover behind an impenetrable defence and have failed to distinguish their belief from any other that could take similar refuge."

A free-floating rationale is one which is not subject to disconfirmation. Is evolution of this nature? Of course not. Evidence that would refute evolution and support biblical genesis has already been predicted but not found.

Sure it has. The "free-floating rationale" of evolutionism takes this evidence and attempts to explain it away under the cloak of "scientific theory" so that it fits into their naturalistic/materialistic axiom, or just wave it away, calling it "psuedoscience" because it does not fit into this axiom.

That doesn't work fisherking. You're committed to calling "evolutionism" a free-floating rationale in order to maintain your mirror-symmetric view of science and religion. But biological evolution is as amenable to scientific investigation as the afterlife isn't.

It does work. I call evolutionism a free floating rational because that is what it appears to be. It is a great example of "Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales". ...." that we nonetheless know to be false" ... "but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly".(regardless of the evidence)

I also " think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief." I agree that people will believe what the want to believe -- and possibly the reason why we find it so difficult to change their minds.

[QED]

It does work. I call evolutionism a free floating rational because that is what it appears to be. It is a great example of "Our ability to invent, at will, any number of free-floating rationales". ...." that we nonetheless know to be false" ... "but many people choose to ignore this convenient defence and embrace the notions wholeheartedly".(regardless of the evidence)

Perhaps the reason you're choosing to re-use so many of my words because of the imapact they've had on you in exposing the weakness of faith-based beliefs? The Afterlife is worth keeping in mind as a good example of a free-floating rationale. "Evolutionism" would have to be similarly "untestable" for your counter charge to stick.

I also " think this shows how much more important it is for people to believe in what they want to believe above that which actually merits belief." I agree that people will believe what the want to believe -- and possibly the reason why we find it so difficult to change their minds.

If you want to change my mind then it's really quite easy. I suggest you start by showing me how mistaken I am in recognizing the generative power of natural selection -- as a multi-level and modelable principle. You should know what I mean by now. The ID camp has to claim that novelty, functionality, complexity etc. cannot be produced by non-intelligent methods of selection. If they don't, then we might find a sound methodology providing a natural explanation for the appearance of ID in things. Before I go on, I better check your position on this -- would you agree that there can be no non-intelligent selection methods that could generate novel, functional, complexity (to trade in a few of the ID'ers favourite currencies).

[Confused]

Why do people feel that they need to believe in something greater than themselves to give their lives a purpose that they can be satisfied with?

Is believing in a "reality" (God/Heaven) for which you have absolutely NO PROOF OF, really all that better than realizing that there is no ULTIMATE purpose to existence? Is tricking yourself to overcome some kind of irrational fear, better than realizing it's irrational and enjoying life for what it actually does offer?

Why do people need an ULTIMATE purpose to life anyway? What does it matter if you are not really the special twinkle in the eye of a magical super-man? Isn't realizing that your purpose is whatever you want it to be better and more honest and more noble and more humbling than believing that you are the special interest of a supernatural father figure in the sky?

Freud would say this need is the result of a child seeing weakness in his father. A child starts life seeing his father as larger than life. He is the ultimate being, the ultimate authority. They rely on this image to keep them safe in the world. To them, there is nothing their father cannot handle. As they grow, they start to notice some of dads weaknesses. Dad can't stop a burglar from breaking in. Dad couldn't stop mom from being raped. Dad can't stop wars. The list is almost endless. Eventually, the image of a grand protector in their dad fades and the adolescent or young adult starts to see life as chaotic with no sense of direction and no security. The notion of a father figure who is larger than life and controls life is the ultimate protector. And poof......God is born.