WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

[POI]

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

[historia]

Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics

It seems clear to me that religious beliefs come from tradition. Whether you are raised in a particular religious group or decided to join one at a later age, that group's beliefs have been handed down through tradition.

I suppose you might say that that is already covered by 'geography' and 'indoctrination' in your list. But 'indoctrination' is a poor term to use here, as it suggests that the religious adherent is not expected to critically examine their beliefs. That may accurately describe some forms of (fundamentalist) religion, but it doesn't reflect moderate or liberal religious groups.

I also think we should keep in mind that religious beliefs are not like scientific beliefs, although the OP seems to want to treat them that way.

Ryan Falcioni, in his article "Is God a Hypothesis? The New Atheism, Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, and Philosophical Confusion" in Religion and the New Atheism (2010), articulates this point well:

One of the first things that is made apparent through even a cursory investigation [of religion] is that religious beliefs do not occupy the same space, and are not held in the same way as scientific beliefs are held. They are not tentative and are not held in proportion to evidences.

A statement of religious belief is a statement about one's life, one's values, about ultimate things. The religious believer does not engage religious beliefs as hypotheses that may or may not turn out to be true. To believe in the religious sense is an act of commitment.

This confessional element of religious belief is logically significant in understanding the very meaning of religious claims. By way of example, could we imagine a person who merely believes in the propositional truths of Christianity but thinks nothing of their significance for her life? I imagine this person stating, "Of course I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, was resurrected on the third day, is God incarnate and is Lord of all, but this just does not matter to me." This may be logically possible, but what could we make of it? It does not seem to have much to do with religion.

...

In other words, a mere intellectual assent to the propositions of a given faith (based on evidential arguments) is not what is meant by having religious beliefs. To be a Christian is to live a certain way; to accept the demand upon your life that Christ has made. Believing in particular propositional truths is not 'believing' in the ordinary sense of religious belief.

...

We do not first believe in religious propositions (because of their alleged evidential support) and then go about being religious. Rather, it is through our religious lives that we see what religious propositions mean.

Religion is not principally about beliefs, but practice. The beliefs are there to inform the practice, and many religious adherents do critically reflect upon the beliefs of their tradition.

Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums?

I've never seen this particular forum as being just about apologetics. But rather think of it as the 'general' forum where one can have a more wide-ranging conversation about any topic concerning religion.

My interests, in particular, lie more in the area of history than theology or science -- two of the other popular forums on this board -- so I spend most of my time on this one.

[brunumb]

But 'indoctrination' is a poor term to use here, as it suggests that the religious adherent is not expected to critically examine their beliefs. That may accurately describe some forms of (fundamentalist) religion, but it doesn't reflect moderate or liberal religious groups.

Indoctrination essentially bypasses critical examination. Religious traditions are passed down through generations and the process starts from the moment of birth. Children are immersed in religious practices and taught what to believe when they do not have the capacity to critically evaluate any of it. There is also trust involved whereby the young instinctively accept most of what their elders and loved ones tell them. In later life intellect is usually not enough to dislodge inculcated beliefs. Logic, reason and evidence were not involved in their creation, so, if they are held without any such support the intellect will not be called upon to scrutinise them. Rather, the discomfort of losing beliefs may even prevent such examination or encourage the search for reinforcement and confirmation. When one loses their religious beliefs it is usually accompanied by even greater loss such as family, friends, community, all the way up to their very life. There is also the fear of eternal damnation if that is part of the inculcated belief. That makes for a lot of subconscious pressure to let sleeping gods lie.

[historia]

But 'indoctrination' is a poor term to use here, as it suggests that the religious adherent is not expected to critically examine their beliefs. That may accurately describe some forms of (fundamentalist) religion, but it doesn't reflect moderate or liberal religious groups.

Indoctrination essentially bypasses critical examination. Religious traditions are passed down through generations and the process starts from the moment of birth. Children are immersed in religious practices and taught what to believe when they do not have the capacity to critically evaluate any of it.

Okay, but what does that have to do with the point I was making?

[POI]

Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics

It seems clear to me that religious beliefs come from tradition. Whether you are raised in a particular religious group or decided to join one at a later age, that group's beliefs have been handed down through tradition.

I suppose you might say that that is already covered by 'geography' and 'indoctrination' in your list. But 'indoctrination' is a poor term to use here, as it suggests that the religious adherent is not expected to critically examine their beliefs. That may accurately describe some forms of (fundamentalist) religion, but it doesn't reflect moderate or liberal religious groups.

I also think we should keep in mind that religious beliefs are not like scientific beliefs, although the OP seems to want to treat them that way.

Ryan Falcioni, in his article "Is God a Hypothesis? The New Atheism, Contemporary Philosophy of Religion, and Philosophical Confusion" in Religion and the New Atheism (2010), articulates this point well:

One of the first things that is made apparent through even a cursory investigation [of religion] is that religious beliefs do not occupy the same space, and are not held in the same way as scientific beliefs are held. They are not tentative and are not held in proportion to evidences.

A statement of religious belief is a statement about one's life, one's values, about ultimate things. The religious believer does not engage religious beliefs as hypotheses that may or may not turn out to be true. To believe in the religious sense is an act of commitment.

This confessional element of religious belief is logically significant in understanding the very meaning of religious claims. By way of example, could we imagine a person who merely believes in the propositional truths of Christianity but thinks nothing of their significance for her life? I imagine this person stating, "Of course I believe that Jesus died on the cross for my sins, was resurrected on the third day, is God incarnate and is Lord of all, but this just does not matter to me." This may be logically possible, but what could we make of it? It does not seem to have much to do with religion.

...

In other words, a mere intellectual assent to the propositions of a given faith (based on evidential arguments) is not what is meant by having religious beliefs. To be a Christian is to live a certain way; to accept the demand upon your life that Christ has made. Believing in particular propositional truths is not 'believing' in the ordinary sense of religious belief.

...

We do not first believe in religious propositions (because of their alleged evidential support) and then go about being religious. Rather, it is through our religious lives that we see what religious propositions mean.

Religion is not principally about beliefs, but practice. The beliefs are there to inform the practice, and many religious adherents do critically reflect upon the beliefs of their tradition.

Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums?

I've never seen this particular forum as being just about apologetics. But rather think of it as the 'general' forum where one can have a more wide-ranging conversation about any topic concerning religion.

My interests, in particular, lie more in the area of history than theology or science -- two of the other popular forums on this board -- so I spend most of my time on this one.

Looking through your response, it's still not quite clear what you believe and why? Would you mind condensing, or fine tuning your primary reason(s)? And, are you willing to have these core reason(s) challenged?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is the main reason I believe in theism.

The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus is the main reason I believe in Christian theism.

2. Is your current belief open for actual debate?

Nope, because the implications of the KCA is inescapable, and is impossible to debunk...which leads to the answer to the next question..

Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?

Is it possible to shake my faith? Yes.

Is it probable? No.

3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums?

I like to debate (generally speaking), and I believe the Lord called upon me to use what I like/love to do for the greater good, which is to educate, inform, and defend his word/kingdom against atheist, agnostics, critics, skeptics, false religions, and so on.

Are you here to convert atheists, or other?

It sounds cliche, but if I am able to touch/save one soul out of millions, I've done a great thing. Now, this may or may not ever happen, but the effort is there.

On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity

True, but it may help keep Christians with Christianity.

Besides, it doesn't matter how you get there..just as long as you get there.

; so why would you expect different for others?

"Besides, it doesn't matter how you get there, just as long as you get there."

[POI]

Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...

The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is the main reason I believe in theism.

So if I have this straight, you were not a God believer until the Kalam was presented to you?

The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus is the main reason I believe in Christian theism.

Why do you feel this argument is so compelling? Can you provide some details?

2. Is your current belief open for actual debate?

Nope, because the implications of the KCA is inescapable, and is impossible to debunk...which leads to the answer to the next question..

Science still is unsure as to whether or not the 'universe' had a 'beginning'? I'm not sure if the Kalam applies to the 'universe'? But even if it did/does, wouldn't it take special pleading to not invoke this same KCA concept to 'god'?

Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?

Is it possible to shake my faith? Yes.

Is it probable? No.

What exactly could shake your faith?

3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums?

I like to debate (generally speaking), and I believe the Lord called upon me to use what I like/love to do for the greater good, which is to educate, inform, and defend his word/kingdom against atheist, agnostics, critics, skeptics, false religions, and so on.

How do you know the 'Lord calls upon you'?

And how do you reconcile the exact same assertion(s) from the believers of opposing god concepts? Meaning, how do you know they are mistaken and you are correct?

On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity

True, but it may help keep Christians with Christianity.

But isn't the KCA a part of apologetics?

[We_Are_VENOM]

So if I have this straight, you were not a God believer until the Kalam was presented to you?

The Kalam is the main reason why I am 100% certain that God exists. Before the Kalam came into my life, everything was based on feelings and blind faith.

Now, it is more than a feeling (Boston). Hahaha.

Why do you feel this argument is so compelling? Can you provide some details?

I find the argument compelling because, from what I gather, the premises are more probable than not, which is enough to tip the scale to "Jesus more than likely DID rise from the dead".

And history has always been my favorite subject, and the argument is STRICTLY based on historical inquiry.

I find the argument, if presented correctly, very compelling and elegant.

Science still is unsure as to whether or not the 'universe' had a 'beginning'?

Actually, the argument is not dependent upon science. The KCA has been around for centuries, well before modern day cosmology....and obviously proponents of the argument weren't appealing to contemporary cosmology to draw their conclusions.

Yet, the conclusions were still drawn....mainly, from philosophical standpoints.

However, the prevailing view in science is that the universe had a beginning, which is of course supported by science.

I'm not sure if the Kalam applies to the 'universe'?

Since the second premise of the kalam is..

2. The universe began to exist

I would think it does apply to the universe.

But even if it did/does, wouldn't it take special pleading to not invoke this same KCA concept to 'god'?

It wouldn't take special pleading...because we have solid reasons to believe that the universe is finite.

It simply is what it is.

What exactly could shake your faith?

Since the truth of historical claims cannot be proven with 100% certainty, the door is always open for negations.

But, it will take a lot of historical findings to overturn what is already there.

How do you know the 'Lord calls upon you'?

When your conscious really nags at you to do something (that you know is the right thing to do), in Christian circles, we call that the Holy Spirit communicating with you.

This may seem like hocus pocus to an unbeliever, but that is what I experienced.

And how do you reconcile the exact same assertion(s) from the believers of opposing god concepts?

I reconcile it by acknowledging the fact that, on Christian theism, we are in a spiritual war; between God and his angels, and Satan and his angels (demons).

The Bible is clear that Satan is the ruler of this world, deceiving many...and with all this deception come with false religions and false teachings, thus, the same assertions from believers of opposing god concepts.

Meaning, how do you know they are mistaken and you are correct?

Just a hunch.

But isn't the KCA a part of apologetics?

Yes, but you were speaking in terms of apologetics being used in bringing people to the faith. Who knows how effective apologetics are in that regard.

However, one thing I do know is my knowledge/use of apologetics helps affirm, strengthen, and keep my faith.

[alexxcJRO]

So if I have this straight, you were not a God believer until the Kalam was presented to you?

The Kalam is the main reason why I am 100% certain that God exists. Before the Kalam came into my life, everything was based on feelings and blind faith.

Now, it is more than a feeling (Boston). Hahaha.

Why do you feel this argument is so compelling? Can you provide some details?

I find the argument compelling because, from what I gather, the premises are more probable than not, which is enough to tip the scale to "Jesus more than likely DID rise from the dead".

And history has always been my favorite subject, and the argument is STRICTLY based on historical inquiry.

I find the argument, if presented correctly, very compelling and elegant.

Science still is unsure as to whether or not the 'universe' had a 'beginning'?

Actually, the argument is not dependent upon science. The KCA has been around for centuries, well before modern day cosmology....and obviously proponents of the argument weren't appealing to contemporary cosmology to draw their conclusions.

Yet, the conclusions were still drawn....mainly, from philosophical standpoints.

However, the prevailing view in science is that the universe had a beginning, which is of course supported by science.

I'm not sure if the Kalam applies to the 'universe'?

Since the second premise of the kalam is..

2. The universe began to exist

I would think it does apply to the universe.

But even if it did/does, wouldn't it take special pleading to not invoke this same KCA concept to 'god'?

It wouldn't take special pleading...because we have solid reasons to believe that the universe is finite.

It simply is what it is.

But isn't the KCA a part of apologetics?

Yes, but you were speaking in terms of apologetics being used in bringing people to the faith. Who knows how effective apologetics are in that regard.

However, one thing I do know is my knowledge/use of apologetics helps affirm, strengthen, and keep my faith.

There are multiple fallacies and problems with the KALAM. This has been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum.

It's unbelievable how people can in 2022 with all the immense knowledge and technological advances available, still believe a magical being created the universe ex nihilo (using only words) because of unsound logical arguments(which is basically just a somewhat clever word play).


Firstly,

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".
There is some uncertainty to whether the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles have any causes for their beginning. They may be exceptions. Freedom of will conform the religious is real and therefore has uncaused components. Therefore the first premise is bogus.


Secondly,

Our understanding of causality is based on recombination of pre-existing stuff, entities and properties (material cause), which does not apply for divine creation. Therefore there is an equivocation fallacy here as well.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Here he refers to material cause recombination of pre-existing stuff.
"The universe has a cause." Here he refers to divine creation-ex nihilo.

Thirdly,

He makes the fallacy of composition.
If things inside the universe(multiverse or whatever) begin to exist or have a cause for their existence does not mean the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.
The fabric of Space-Time is probably finite and necessarily has a beginning state of minimum entropy(Singularity) and possibly an end state of maximum entropy(Heat Death).
The fabric of Space-time may be just a thing inside the universe(multiverse or whatever).

Fourthly,

We have also the fallacy of single cause.
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an
outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

There may be that the fabric of Space-Time(this thing inside universe(multiverse or whatever) or the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself was caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

Fifthly,
Scientists don't know what happened before plank time.
So all this talk is irrelevant and highly speculative.
The reality there is a gap in our knowledge.
Using this gap to make an argument for God just makes one guilty of the fallacy: argument from ignorance and plays right into the God of the Gaps.

Here an interesting read from Sean Carroll (the physicist):

"From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to sustain a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an
additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings,
but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about causality, but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one.
If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time caused the state to be what it was at
the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are” we don't need any ancillary notions."

[historia]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #67]
[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #68]

Perhaps you guys can take this argument here.

[Eloi]

I believe in three fundamental truths:

1) there is the Creator of all things
2) the Bible is a book inspired by Him so that we know what we need to know about our origin, God's relationship with humanity, current human reality, the future of the planet and human beings, etc.
3) The Creator of the world has a close-knit community of worshipers on earth, and he is very closely related to them.

On the first point: if I made an abstraction of all humanity in my person, I would have to recognize that I must have a father ... a father of all humanity. His activity towards me as a son is remarkable all over the planet, because he has supplied everything that I, that is the whole of humanity, have needed to get here and now. In addition, he has not abandoned me, because he wrote me a letter to give me an explanation, a consolation, and a hope ... and that would be the second point, later.