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?

[QED]

Believing in God/Heaven might seem to be reasonable in the absence of proof simply because it's self-evident that there's something that's made it possible for us to come into being and marvel at our host. This observation makes some assumptions though. Why must it be assumed that intent is involved? It is as inadequate to point to the apparent fitness of the universe for our existence and interpret that as evidence that we were intended as it would be to interpret our noses as having been intended as supports for our bi-focals. I suspect that people who remain tethered to this kind of argument despite its obvious flaws are indeed seeking ways to rationalize the wishful notion that the world has been deliberately ordered for the benefit of their souls.

Possibly this is a reaction to the truly intimidating nature of the universe in all its dimensions, but I think there are other ways to take comfort from our surroundings: the universe needs to be this big and this old to host complicated atomic structures like us. And it might be that the universe owes us a debt of gratitude for being its eyes and ears! This may seem like a heresy to those who worship God for all his generosity but it's indelibly stamped on the other side of a coin which is yet to come to rest on one side or the other.

[OnceConvinced]

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?

You have a very valid point here. God expects us to be humble, but yet believing we are called by God, that he created us for a purpose is really quite arrogant and holier than thou. Nothing humble about that at all.

[Assent]

*Oversimplifications follow*The real difference between religion and non-religion is not in the answers to the big questions. The real difference is that religion chooses to prove its claims with unscientific evidence, evidence which is defended and attacked repeatedly and constantly with all who seem to come into contact with it. Atheists generally do not support their claims with evidence, instead jumping to the claim that if religion cannot support its claims with scientific evidence, then the opposite must be true. Agnostics and Humanists sit on the fence and watch the mud fly, or turn around and ignore the proceedings entirely.

But perhaps there is a space between. There is room enough in a scientific universe for unfounded claims about what is beyond it, both in the positive and the negative assertion. Neither can give evidence to support its claim, but perhaps neither has to. The only trouble comes when one tries to convince others of one's opinions.

[brandx1138]

Atheists generally do not support their claims with evidence, instead jumping to the claim that if religion cannot support its claims with scientific evidence, then the opposite must be true. There is room enough in a scientific universe for unfounded claims about what is beyond it, both in the positive and the negative assertion. Neither can give evidence to support its claim, but perhaps neither has to. The only trouble comes when one tries to convince others of one's opinions.

Atheists can support their claims with evidence quite well. There's a book out now by Vic Stenger who claims to do just that, called "God: The Failed Hypothesis". The problem, however, is not the atheist's but the theist's. The theist makes the positive claim that there is a god, and not just an intelligent supernatural presence that is responsible for the universe, but a god who actually intervenes and cares about his creation and needs his creation to care back. Then the theist will present what he claims is evidence which is either severely lacking in credibility or misinterpreted or just plain false. The atheist doesn't have to make any claims except for the claim that the theist's "evidence" is ill-conceived, along with an explanation for his reasonable doubt. Any atheist who claims to be certain that there is no god is just as wrong-headed as the theist.

For everything else in this world that we claim as important for a functioning society (medicine, economics, law, government, etc.) we have to be analytical and scrutinizing or else mistakes are made and lives are in jeapordy. But with regard to religion, we must have faith instead of an analytical nature. Why?

And shouldn't we try to convince theists of our "opinions" if it means living in a world with less irrationality, hubris, deceit and unecessary misery? If those opinions are based on the same opinions used in "scientific thinking", wouldn't that lend credibility to their effectiveness over the opinions of theistic thought? In other words, where is the history of reliability and productiveness due to strictly religious thought?

[Fisherking]

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?

There is a great deal of evidence that this "reality" does indeed exist. Just because one chooses to deny or explain away the proof doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist.

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?

Is tricking oneself into believing that there is no evidence for God, heaven, or hell a wise discission if there is a God, heaven, or hell?

Why do people need an ULTIMATE purpose to life anyway?

I would say it is because we do have an "ultimate" purpose.

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?

If our purpose is whatever we want it to be, why does it have to be honest, noble, or humbling?

[brandx1138]

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?

There is a great deal of evidence that this "reality" does indeed exist. Just because one chooses to deny or explain away the proof doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist.

Well, if I can explain your proof away as being illogical, credulous or false then haven't I therefore shown your proof to be in error? But let's dismiss with the hypotheticals, tell me what your proof is and I'll judge it accordingly. Give me your 5 or so strongest pieces of evidence that support the claim of the Christian God as you see it.

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?

Is tricking oneself into believing that there is no evidence for God, heaven, or hell a wise discission if there is a God, heaven, or hell?

Only if the "God/heaven/hell" claim ISN'T riddled with holes and logical fallacies. which it is. You can't threaten me with an invisible knife.

Why do people need an ULTIMATE purpose to life anyway?

I would say it is because we do have an "ultimate" purpose.

And that purpose is?

And, just for argument's sake, what if there was no God, would that be so bad? Wouldn't the world make even more sense (in the wake of the Problem of Evil, Free Will, etc.) without a God? You wouldn't have to make so many excuses for why these things occur in the face of a benign, omnipotent god.

In addition to telling me what our purpose is, can you please tell me at least 5 problems that would arise in a world without a god?

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?

If our purpose is whatever we want it to be, why does it have to be honest, noble, or humbling?

I'm not saying the purpose that you choose for yourself is itself those things. I'm saying the option of having a purpose that is self-directed rather than divinely-commanded is more honest, noble and humbling. You have the independence and self-reliance -- and therefore greater satisfaction -- when you make your own way, when you do things yourself, when you create your own destiny, instead of being a slave to someone else's wishes and living your life in subservience to a commander whom you did not elect.

[Assent]

The theist makes the positive claim that there is a god, and not just an intelligent supernatural presence that is responsible for the universe, but a god who actually intervenes and cares about his creation and needs his creation to care back. Then the theist will present what he claims is evidence which is either severely lacking in credibility or misinterpreted or just plain false.

Perhaps. That is why the space lies between the theist and atheist. If a theist would leave behind his attempts to prove himself to doubters and if an atheist would leave behind his attempts to debunk the theist, all that would be left would be ideas; philosophical thought experiments that do not affect existence.

The atheist doesn't have to make any claims except for the claim that the theist's "evidence" is ill-conceived, along with an explanation for his reasonable doubt. Any atheist who claims to be certain that there is no god is just as wrong-headed as the theist.

I full-heartedly agree.

For everything else in this world that we claim as important for a functioning society (medicine, economics, law, government, etc.) we have to be analytical and scrutinizing or else mistakes are made and lives are in jeapordy. But with regard to religion, we must have faith instead of an analytical nature. Why?

Because to live well it is not important to have the answers, just the questions. And we all begin with the same questions. However you answer the questions is entirely up to you.

And shouldn't we try to convince theists of our "opinions" if it means living in a world with less irrationality, hubris, deceit and unecessary misery?

Religion is not the source of foolishness and pride; it springs from a well that sits in all of us, and I am afraid that what you ask of humanity is beyond its ability to change.

If those opinions are based on the same opinions used in "scientific thinking", wouldn't that lend credibility to their effectiveness over the opinions of theistic thought? In other words, where is the history of reliability and productiveness due to strictly religious thought?

Answering the questions we were all born to ask is inherently unproductive. Nothing is obtained except self-satisfaction no matter what the answer is. How one arrives at the answer is a matter of personal preference.

I do not attempt to defend strictly religious thought, but neither can I support strictly non-religious thought. This is why I say there is a space between, where there is room for both to co-exist.

[brandx1138]

The theist makes the positive claim that there is a god, and not just an intelligent supernatural presence that is responsible for the universe, but a god who actually intervenes and cares about his creation and needs his creation to care back. Then the theist will present what he claims is evidence which is either severely lacking in credibility or misinterpreted or just plain false.

Perhaps. That is why the space lies between the theist and atheist. If a theist would leave behind his attempts to prove himself to doubters and if an atheist would leave behind his attempts to debunk the theist, all that would be left would be ideas; philosophical thought experiments that do not affect existence.

I agree, because the atheist exists only because the theist exists. If there were no spurious theistic claims, there would be no need for the divisive labels and arguments against the theistic claims.

For everything else in this world that we claim as important for a functioning society (medicine, economics, law, government, etc.) we have to be analytical and scrutinizing or else mistakes are made and lives are in jeapordy. But with regard to religion, we must have faith instead of an analytical nature. Why?

Because to live well it is not important to have the answers, just the questions. And we all begin with the same questions. However you answer the questions is entirely up to you.

Yes, but if those answers then jeopardize the well-being of others, then those answers should be called into question. And to live well, it IS important to have answers to most questions. I, for one, don't care whether or not there is a god. It makes no difference to my well-being one way or another. It is only until someone who DOES see its importance is therefore trying to impose that opinion on my life, then I must protest.

And shouldn't we try to convince theists of our "opinions" if it means living in a world with less irrationality, hubris, deceit and unecessary misery?

Religion is not the source of foolishness and pride; it springs from a well that sits in all of us, and I am afraid that what you ask of humanity is beyond its ability to change.

I agree that religion is endemic to our human nature. But it is not something that is beyond our ability to overcome. If we can change nature in many other ways, why can't we change this? Once we understand why we believe, is it not therefore easier to manage? Apparently many people have already done so. No, religion is not the source of foolishness and pride, but it harbors our instinct for those attributes, and can create excess reasons for their sustenance where there need not be.

If those opinions are based on the same opinions used in "scientific thinking", wouldn't that lend credibility to their effectiveness over the opinions of theistic thought? In other words, where is the history of reliability and productiveness due to strictly religious thought?

Answering the questions we were all born to ask is inherently unproductive. Nothing is obtained except self-satisfaction no matter what the answer is. How one arrives at the answer is a matter of personal preference.

You can't say that answering ALL the questions we were born to ask is unproductive. If we didn't ask questions, we wouldn't learn anything, if we didn't learn anything, we wouldn't survive. And what's wrong with being satisfied? Isn't that what keeps you moving through life? And yes, how you get the answer is a personal preference. But the preference should be weighed in regard to how it conforms to reality, how it affects other lives, and how useful and productive it is...unless of course you don't prefer any of those things. In which case, I could make a strong argument for your being a detriment to the function of society.

I do not attempt to defend strictly religious thought, but neither can I support strictly non-religious thought. This is why I say there is a space between, where there is room for both to co-exist.

Only in a thought experiment. But in the real world, what people do with regard to their beliefs is important. If those beliefs are ill-conceived, then they are acting on false assumptions and, depending on the areas of society that their beliefs can affect, it bears a great importance for debate. If I say to you that I have evidence that jumping off bridges is the best way to find the truth of reality and I can somehow convince 85% of the populace that I'm right and that we should move public policy into the direction of state-legislated bridge jumping, wouldn't you say that there isn't the same amount of room for that opinion and its opponent's opinion on the table? If religion stayed in the private sphere (like Jesus commands), then I would have no problem with it, there would be room for both opinions to exist, even if only one was actually true.

[Assent]

I shall get the clerical errors out of the way first.

I agree that religion is endemic to our human nature. But it is not something that is beyond our ability to overcome...

I am afraid I misspoke. What I said was not that religion is a part of human nature, but that foolishness and pride are.

You can't say that answering ALL the questions we were born to ask is unproductive. If we didn't ask questions, we wouldn't learn anything, if we didn't learn anything, we wouldn't survive. And what's wrong with being satisfied? Isn't that what keeps you moving through life? And yes, how you get the answer is a personal preference. But the preference should be weighed in regard to how it conforms to reality, how it affects other lives, and how useful and productive it is...unless of course you don't prefer any of those things. In which case, I could make a strong argument for your being a detriment to the function of society.

Again, a misstatement. What I was refereing to were the Big Questions, such as, "Why do I exist?" "Why does anything exist?" "Why do bad things happen?" etc. Those curious about more banal questions would of course be better suited to getting consistent answers. Being satisfied is a good thing, but answering questions that do not immediately affect one's life is not exactly how I use the word "productive." See my signature for further details. Now, as for how answering the questions affects one's morals, which do affect one's life, I will answer that below.

Yes, but if those answers then jeopardize the well-being of others, then those answers should be called into question. And to live well, it IS important to have answers to most questions. I, for one, don't care whether or not there is a god. It makes no difference to my well-being one way or another. It is only until someone who DOES see its importance is therefore trying to impose that opinion on my life, then I must protest...
Only in a thought experiment. But in the real world, what people do with regard to their beliefs is important. If those beliefs are ill-conceived, then they are acting on false assumptions and, depending on the areas of society that their beliefs can affect, it bears a great importance for debate. If I say to you that I have evidence that jumping off bridges is the best way to find the truth of reality and I can somehow convince 85% of the populace that I'm right and that we should move public policy into the direction of state-legislated bridge jumping, wouldn't you say that there isn't the same amount of room for that opinion and its opponent's opinion on the table? If religion stayed in the private sphere (like Jesus commands), then I would have no problem with it, there would be room for both opinions to exist, even if only one was actually true.

From all that I have seen and from all that I have heard, I cannot believe that one's answers to the Big Questions and one's morality are in any way related. An outright criminal may be a God-fearing Christian. An atheist may be sanctimonious. A Buddhist may believe in profiteering. A Jew may desire genocide (of others). So many conflicting moralities stem from Christianity because so many cultures count it as their religion. But do you know what we all share in common? We all believe that we are right. Christians know that what they believe is right. Taoists know that what they believe is right. Atheists know that refusing to just believe is right. Even Agnostics know that not knowing, not deciding, is right. I know that everyone is both right and wrong. And I know that I am right.