Forum Home

Hello!
It’s been a while since I’ve thought of starting up a post. I’ve taken some time away from OB doing a bit of research before starting up medical school (I ended up deferring from med school to get pre-reqs so I can end up with an MD/PhD). I guess that explains the absence. However, I’m hoping to show my face around this place a bit more… I’m sure few of you know who I am.

I thought I’d start with an interesting topic: Faith and Reason.

Let me preface this by saying I’ve done my research. I realize that only a few months ago there was already a similar discussion about God, Inconsistencies in the Bible, etc. (It’s disappointing to see that these threads lacked steam)

So I’m justifying the existence of this thread with some very specific questions and… with some luck… we might use this as a launching point for a more formal debate on a later date.

My story has been a bit of a change over the last few years… I used to be a fairly rational believer in Jesus. I read plenty of apologetic literature (McDowell, Strobel, etc) when debating close friends in little “Socrates cafes” while I was growing up. Later, evolution became a topic of interest and I spent a lot of time trying to support “intelligent design creationism” which essentially boiled down to arguing enough holes in evolutionary theory to sit my version of God in.

Fast forward a few years to college. I start reading a few basic criticisms and finally read the bible the whole way through. This is more discouraging than not. I start going to more advanced courses in biology and realize my entire position on intelligent design was in serious error. I take a moment to read authors like Lewis and Collins to try to rescue me from my doubt, but reasonable arguments begin to creep in. I decide to entertain some of my questions about God and the opposing arguments. I read Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, Pascal Boyer, PZ Meyers, and other critics of faith. After a great deal of frustration and fear of recourse, I choose to recognize my state of disbelief and exist publicly comfortable with my atheism.

Now, I’m interested in other people’s journeys. I’m curious to see how people tackle the big questions (those that do). I know that, if OB hasn’t changed too much, we’ll have some bright minds willing to use these questions to frame their replies:

1. If you believe in God, why do you believe?

2. Why do you think others believe in God?

3. The most popular conflict between faith and reason is usually on the evolution/creationism controversy. What’s your take on the issue? Can science be compatible with belief? Do you accept evolutionary theory?

4. What do you think are the most compelling arguments to not believe in God? Or, what do you think are the greatest challenges to peoples’ faith.

for instance; some people think the existence of evil, in light of an all-powerful, all-good God, is a tough question that theologians don’t have a clear answer to and may lead people to non-belief

5. Do you think there is such thing as “reasonable faith”? Or, do you think they are in conflict?

6. Lastly, if you believe in God. What evidence do you have in favor of your belief?

Let’s start off with these. I’m interested in your replies?

1. I believe in God more so because I want to believe there is something to look forward to in the afterlife. I am afraid, not of death, but of what lies afterwords. I don't want to be a pile of bones underground. Another reason I eblieve in god is because who else could have create us? But my definition and belief of god is different from most Christians. I DO NOT believe in the bible, or the church. Any place that can say it's a sin to commit adultry and turn around and commit it anyway, doesn't deserve followers imo. Also, a lot the church hates gays and other races/peoples. I know a mojority don't, but the ones that do make me sick.

My god doesn't hate, he loves no matter what. Other than that, I don't think much about religion or god. That stuff stays in my head, I don't let beliefs get in font of my actions.

2. Personally, for the same reasons I do, and for other reasons.

3. Well, I believe it worked both ways, god created us, we evolved, and god helped us evolve.

4. If heat rises is heaven hotter than hell? No really, I'm being totally serious. BUt for me, I don't really know. But stuff like the human veins and stuff, seems too complicated. Why would god go scientific and make are body so complex? It's not like we're walking Rubix Cubes that need solving lol.

5. I don't quite understand number 5. I mean, UNreasonable faith, yes. Talking about god constantly gets annoying and naggy. I don't care if you love god unconditionally, that's your buisiness, I dont' care about anyone else's beliefs but my own. It's no ones buisiness to know my beliefs, and it's not my buisiness to question some elses.

6. The universe, I believe in life on other planets, and I believe that God created other life. I mean, if we're the only life forms in the WHOLE universe, whats the point of having a large universe? Also, supernatural phenomenon such as ghosts, spirits, and the unexplanble, like possesion and stuff like that.

1. N/A

2. Because they need some kind of purpose in their lives and can't accept that humans don't know anything about how we were created.

3. Science can be compatible with religion, and yes I do believe in evolution. There have been hundreds of instances of survival of the fittest in modern times.

4. I don't know about most compelling, but I've come to accept this statement:

"I don't know. I'll never know while I'm alive. No use wasting time pondering the subject."

5. I think it can occur to an extent, but by definition faith goes that step beyond reason.

6. N/A

1. If you believe in God, why do you believe?

N/A

2. Why do you think others believe in God?

Most people I know are afraid of the idea that there isn't something beyond this life, so believing in God seems to be their way to eradicate that fear.

3. The most popular conflict between faith and reason is usually on the evolution/creationism controversy. What’s your take on the issue? Can science be compatible with belief? Do you accept evolutionary theory?

I don't know enough to really say, from what little I have read on the subject, I'm fine with the concept of evolution. It's not my final say on the matter since learning more is bound to change how I see it.

4. What do you think are the most compelling arguments to not believe in God? Or, what do you think are the greatest challenges to peoples’ faith.

for instance; some people think the existence of evil, in light of an all-powerful, all-good God, is a tough question that theologians don’t have a clear answer to and may lead people to non-belief

Compelling arguments? Nothing beyond the obvious that proving such a thing is in my mind, not really possible.

If I were to argue that someone like God really existed, then evil comes about from free will instead of a failure on his part. But... I don't believe in God so that point is kind of irrelevant.

5. Do you think there is such thing as “reasonable faith”? Or, do you think they are in conflict?

Meh, this is an area I know next to nothing about.

6. Lastly, if you believe in God. What evidence do you have in favor of your belief?

N/A

I'm just gonna say this now 'fore I get all analytical on you: my beliefs are pretty confused, which is to say that I'm not entirely sure what I believe in. I'm on the religious fence, as it were.

That said, I'd like to make an extremely contrary argument by looking at both sides. >3

On the one hand, there's faith and reason warring. Evolution, yes, is the main divider. If God created us, what's up with the dinosaur bones and carbon dating? If it was only evolution, how is it that on this planet in this galaxy in this cosmos was in perfect position to start creating life?

Now there's the other side: faith and reason in relative harmony. You might have noticed how, in history classes, Jesus is referred to as a nonfictional, not-necessarily-religious character in history. Basically, this means that he existed for sure, but whether or not you believe that he was the Messiah is completely up to whether or not you're a religious person.

I think that the two ideas can live together in peace on alot of things, but there are just too many inconsistencies between the two for them to be able to shake hands and agree on a single story.

Originally Posted by Drix D'Zanth

1. If you believe in God, why do you believe?

I don't.

2. Why do you think others believe in God?

Well, it's kind of judgmental for me to make sweeping generalizations when everyone's reason is different. To me, I would assume people feel like a higher power assigns a greater meaning to their life. Some probably see it as the entire reason to good -- to escape divine judgment. Some simply feel it's comforting to have something waiting for them in the cold abyss that is death.

3. The most popular conflict between faith and reason is usually on the evolution/creationism controversy. What’s your take on the issue? Can science be compatible with belief? Do you accept evolutionary theory?

I absolutely accept evolutionary theory, and I think those who don't should truly and honestly look into it. I think faith can be reconciled with science, and a lot of times it's quite easy to do so. Personally I don't see the massive conflict.

4. What do you think are the most compelling arguments to not believe in God? Or, what do you think are the greatest challenges to peoples’ faith.

The presence of extreme suffering in the world. The lack of actual evidence -- all the divine intervention happened thousands of years ago, and there's no more of it. Strange, no? The Bible has a great number of contradictions as well.

But when you step back and examine the human race as simply another animal, just as insignificant as an ant in the scope of the universe, it is truly humbling. I don't think many people understand the vastness of the universe, how the Earth isn't even a grain of sand on a beach, how small, finite, and fragile we are. When you truly understand that, I think you'd have trouble thinking you are God's "highest creation," so special and individual.

5. Do you think there is such thing as “reasonable faith”? Or, do you think they are in conflict?

Absolutely there can be "reasonable faith". However I think it requires a great deal of depersonalization of the entity we consider to be "God". In the end, everyone will know that we simply don't have all the answers, and that there leaves a great amount of room for supernatural explanations. But the most powerful faiths I have seen have not been the blind, but the reasoned. Those who can appreciate the grand order of existence, the complexities of it, and simply marvel at its greatness.

I’m interested in your replies?

Likewise, champ.

1. I no longer believe in a God or gods - I used to, but with age that belief has waned somewhat.

2. While I personally have no belief in God, I understand that for a lot of people faith is incredibly important - it helps them through bleak times in their lives, the loss of loved ones and the like. I imagine it could be a great comfort to people to know that supposedly everything happens for a reason.

3. I accept evolutionary theory, and have no qualms in saying that people who don't simply haven't read enough. However, I think that belief in evolution doesn't mean that you must renounce your faith - if you look at a lot of "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking there is a lot of suggestion that once we reach the limits of human understanding (science etc.) then we are forced to admit that there could be some sort of divine influence out there. If a man that clever can accept that science and religion live side by side then I think it's worth a shot.

4. The pain and suffering that has been done in God's name. Suicide bombers claiming they are doing God's will. Israel and Palestine. The Crusades, for goodness' sake.

5. Is something it's a little too early to make a cogent response to.

6. N/A

1. If you believe in God, why do you believe?

I don't.

2. Why do you think others believe in God?

I can't presume to know what others think, but I imagine it's a combination of wanting to think there is more than the short lives we have. As Rach mentioned, I've run into people who are literally terrified over the notion that there is nothing after death. So it seems that their belief in God is merely something to still that fear.

3. The most popular conflict between faith and reason is usually on the evolution/creationism controversy. What’s your take on the issue? Can science be compatible with belief? Do you accept evolutionary theory?

I tend to believe more in evolution than I do creationism. I honestly don't know enough on both subjects to fully say one way or the other, however, if I don't believe in God, that kind of makes believing in creationism problematic.

4. What do you think are the most compelling arguments to not believe in God? Or, what do you think are the greatest challenges to peoples’ faith.

for instance; some people think the existence of evil, in light of an all-powerful, all-good God, is a tough question that theologians don’t have a clear answer to and may lead people to non-belief

Inability to actually prove such a being exists. I questioned that all the time when I was a child and the only tangible answer I ever got back was that it was my lack of faith that was the problem... That's not good enough for me, I want more.

Ironically I have no issue with the concept of evil disproving something like God. However that ties into the Mormon beliefs that I was raised with [though I no longer follow that faith] since in that belief the concept that you have to make your own choices, good or bad, is something I agree with regardless of religion.

5. Do you think there is such thing as “reasonable faith”? Or, do you think they are in conflict?

I'd need to know more about this before I could give an opinion on it.

6. Lastly, if you believe in God. What evidence do you have in favor of your belief?

Since I don't believe... this doesn't really apply.

Okay, here we go. Please forgive me for answering this in a very long and roundabout way; ideally, I'd like this post to be a clarification of the questions involved rather than just a personal opinion.

The problem starts with the word "belief": when someone says they believe in God, how should we understand this? Usually when we say "believe" we mean that a certain person holds something to be true. So for instance, if I say, "I believe the new season of Haruhi won't be as great as the first one," I mean that I have considered a certain fact (the quality of the new Haruhi season) that looks like it could go one way or another, and for various reasons (patterns I may have spotted from past shows, or whatever) I have decided that one of those options is the case to the exclusion of the others.

But belief in God might be something different. Of course, depending on how the word "God" is used it might not be - I might really believe that God exists in the same way that I might believe something about Haruhi's quality (and I think when people argue that it's more likely or less likely, or more reasonable or less reasonable, that God exists, that they are using the word in this way). The usual understanding of God, though, is of something all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and all-loving - what St. Anselm called "that than which nothing greater can be imagined." These kinds of terms stretch our language and our ideas to the breaking point (maybe beyond). And properly speaking, I don't think we (us humans) can make sense of such a thing. That, presumably, is why the same St. Anselm also says that God is not only that than which nothing greater can be thought, but also "something greater than can be thought." And with that, we hit upon the very strange fact that atheists and the (more thoughtful) believers actually have a lot in common. Atheists will look upon the concept of God - something all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. - and say that this idea can't be understood, that we could never possibly perceive or experience such a being. The believers (if they have given it some thought) will also say that God can neither be understood nor really experienced (at least, within natural means). The atheists infer from this that God could never possibly exist, while the believers find that this is the only being that could ever deserve the name God - precisely because it's beyond such comprehension. The atheist thesis that if God existed then God would have to be completely unlike every other being is the basic starting point of theology. Justifiably so: what would a God be, if it were an easily digestible object of knowledge like any other? if I can be forgiven for quoting Kierkegaard: "If I can grasp God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do so I must believe." When I believe something about Haruhi, I do so because I can conceive the show in various ways (as related to certain states of affairs). God, by our definition, is inconceivable. Belief in God, when it happens, thus has to work in a way completely alien to every other kind of belief. This is nicely summed up by Luther's famous line that "faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see."

This confusion about what "believing in God" means continues into the meaning of faith. Usually when we use the word "faith" we mean it in the sense of taking something to be true without a reason. Hearing "faith in God" in this sense, we imagine that it means to hold a certain opinion - that "a being which is God exists" - in an "irrational" way, as opposed to rationally justified beliefs (such as those of science). The usual way that dogmatic believers now like to deal with this is by saying that at some point science, too, is "irrational" in the sense that it takes some things (the orderliness of the universe, for example) for granted. That may be true as far as things go, but it really just confuses the issue more. The heart of the problem, I think, is that "faith in God" - understanding God to be what was meant above - can't be taken as holding something to be true, with or without reason. It can't even fall onto the map of rationality and irrationality. If God is really incomprehensible - that is, if God's really God - we can't even know what it would mean to hold that something about God is true or not. Broadly speaking, having faith in God means not knowing what it is you have faith in. This is clear even in Christian literature, sometimes agonizingly so: Augustine, the best example, constantly doubts whether his conversion was "real" or just some momentary sense of pleasure, or even a trick by the devil. That he nevertheless pressed on (despite apparently recognizing that his "conversion" may have been the result of something he had eaten earlier that day) indicates not an "irrational belief" - what, exactly, would he be holding as true? - but rather a sort of practical absurdity. That, it seems to me, is more typical of faith than "belief" of the usual sort: faith is a sort of state wherein one acts in a way which even to oneself makes no real sense and has no real justification, while one nevertheless wishes (or even expects) that at some place, at some time, at some level, those actions will come to mean something. So although there might be many kinds of faith (in this sense), religious faith - that the sense of one's actions will only be clear to a being who is (to us) unthinkable - could be thought of as the most extreme.

tl;dr - the difference between atheists and believers is not that one holds a certain proposition to be true while the other denies it (which is what it looks like when framed as a question about "belief" as holding something to be true). It's not a question of "rationality" versus "irrationality." To put the answer boardly, the issue is really about at what level actions make (or might make) sense. And with all of these distinctions in place, maybe I can start on your questions.

1. I would say that I hold out hope for God. That's about the best answer I can give. And I don't (or can't) hope much, mind you (I'm not very good as far as believers go).

2. I think they come to it in their own ways. And since this is as good a place to say it as anywhere: I don't mean to imply that there aren't also idolators out there. There are tons: again, I'm not much of a believer myself, but I tend to think that idol worship has now reached something of a Golden Age. Imagine that someone believes in God (i.e. holds God to exist) because they think God stands against certain enemies they have, or certain things they dislike; imagine that someone believes in God because they think it will save them from the oblivion of death or an eternity in Hell; imagine that someone believes in God because without such a being their life or their actions would have no meaning, or because there would be no difference between right and wrong, or because human beings would cease to be special. What is any of this but the worst kind of idolatry? What does it amount to, except making an object which can fulfill our own desires and giving it the name "God"? Thus we use "God" as a merchant who's pleased to accept the right coin, and who gives back rewards in exchange; thus we use "God" as a guarantor of value and morality, a watchdog who makes sure we remain comfortable in our lives. Really, anyone who's read a little should be able to recognize this for what it is. And Job in particular (my favorite book in the OT) is expressly devoted to destroying this idea.

3. Creationism (by which I understand the idea that God created the earth several thousand years ago, along with human beings and many if not all of the other animals) is bad science and worse theology. Only a fool could think such an idea is still scientifically acceptable, and only a brute could think that there are no other ways of reading Genesis 1 and 2. ID theory has been a bit smarter, in that it really amounts to an attack on evolution with the buried assumption that if "darwinism" falls then the only remaining explanation is divine (or alien) intervention. ID's objections have long since been answered fairly conclusively, but the existence of the dispute still makes it politically acceptable to push gussied-up creationism into classrooms under the cover of "teaching the controversy." If I didn't know any better, I'd suspect that was the goal all along.

Concerning the broader question of "science's compatibility with belief," I would say that the two basically aren't in competition. Scientific method, especially since the early 20th century, is grounded in the idea that its theses should be testable, or at the very least conceivable. In other words, in science we should at least be able to know what it would mean for a thesis to be true or false. As I tried to say above, this is not the case with God, since a scientifically knowable God wouldn't be God. Science can, as Laplace once said, do without the assumption of God, but that also means it can speak neither for nor against such a being.

4. Oddly, theodicy (the problem you mention here) doesn't seem to me to be a great difficulty - and this, again, because we don't know what it means for something to be an all-good, all-powerful being. Once again, Job is good to read on this. Second, if you take the tradition seriously, I think the more basic challenge to faith is the idolatry mentioned above - the distraction where one makes a sort of fetish out of God and clings to it for comfort. If this is true, then the strange consequence is that the "atheists" are, in a sense, closer to being genuine believers than the idolaters (and this, too, has biblical justification in some of the parables).

5. I think I basically already answered this in my long exposition above. On my understanding, to consider faith "reasonable" or "unreasonable" is to make a sort of category mistake.

6. Well, if you take me seriously, then my having evidence for God would invalidate the thing's being God.

All right, that's all. If you've read this all the way through, thank you for the effort. I hope I've been reasonably clear, at least; in any case, I don't think I could do very much better.

2. I think they come to it in their own ways. And since this is as good a place to say it as anywhere: I don't mean to imply that there aren't also idolators out there. There are tons: again, I'm not much of a believer myself, but I tend to think that idol worship has now reached something of a Golden Age. Imagine that someone believes in God (i.e. holds God to exist) because they think God stands against certain enemies they have, or certain things they dislike; imagine that someone believes in God because they think it will save them from the oblivion of death or an eternity in Hell; imagine that someone believes in God because without such a being their life or their actions would have no meaning, or because there would be no difference between right and wrong, or because human beings would cease to be special. What is any of this but the worst kind of idolatry? What does it amount to, except making an object which can fulfill our own desires and giving it the name "God"? Thus we use "God" as a merchant who's pleased to accept the right coin, and who gives back rewards in exchange; thus we use "God" as a guarantor of value and morality, a watchdog who makes sure we remain comfortable in our lives. Really, anyone who's read a little should be able to recognize this for what it is. And Job in particular (my favorite book in the OT) is expressly devoted to destroying this idea.

I really like the way you explained/answered that question. Anyway... moving on to my own attempt to answer the questions.

1. If you believe in God, why do you believe?

I do not.

2. Why do you think others believe in God?

See above quote.

3. The most popular conflict between faith and reason is usually on the evolution/creationism controversy. What’s your take on the issue? Can science be compatible with belief? Do you accept evolutionary theory?

Evolution is my take as I don't really accept the idea of creationism since it seems to be nothing more than a means to continue one's belief that a being such as God exists. However, my knowledge of both is pretty sketchy so that opinion is subject to change.

4. What do you think are the most compelling arguments to not believe in God? Or, what do you think are the greatest challenges to peoples’ faith.

for instance; some people think the existence of evil, in light of an all-powerful, all-good God, is a tough question that theologians don’t have a clear answer to and may lead people to non-belief

I don't think an argument is necessary, it's something that it's very description is something you can't experience or prove. It either exists of it doesn't and I find the idea of spending so much time saying yes it does and no it doesn't, kind of pointless.

5. Do you think there is such thing as “reasonable faith”? Or, do you think they are in conflict?

I really don't know much about this concept so I'm going to leave it be.

6. Lastly, if you believe in God. What evidence do you have in favor of your belief?

I don't so therefore, no reason or evidence.

Wow. I now instantaneously love these boards. I never thought I'd see a controversial topic. I guess I'm too used to to those safe boards I was always on when I was younger. Bloody safe boards! Anyway, I'm totally going to have a field day with this.


1. If you believe in God, why do you believe?
I never believed in one god. I just couldn't wrap my mind around the idea that one being was an overlord to the rest of us, a king of an old world. As I grew older, though, I began to look into mythological stories, and study legends. The old religions like Asatru and Ancient Egyptian appealed to me, but still my heart wasn't in it. Then I started thinking about religion and really decided 'Why have organized religion?' All religion is is a way to represent your beliefs, almost like some kind of whacked out spiritial governmental faction. Can't you just believe something without labeling yourself?

So today, I believe the 3 fates guide over our lives, the soul has its own material plane where the 'gods' or more powerful souls reside, reincarnation, that spirits take the shape of animals, and that miracles and magic can't happen on our plane. As you can see, it draws influences from Greek, Wiccan, Otherkin, Hindu, and several others not mentioned. I decided there's no need to explain. Why explain yourself to the eyes of another?

2. Why do you think others believe in God?
I believe they have no other choice. Whenever I meet a religious person, my first question is "Who told you about your religion?" I always get the same answer: My parents did and I believed. Most never even looked into anything else, blindly following in their parents footsteps because it was the most comfortable thing to do.

If I could remember more of the several Psychology classes I took and went all Freud on you, I'd chalk this up to being a person's way of connected with their parents, going an extra step to be who their parent's wanted them to be, conforming under Authority. We're taught to listen to those wiser than us all our lives, and the mass of people who follow this conventional menthod do nothing but.

3. The most popular conflict between faith and reason is usually on the evolution/creationism controversy. What’s your take on the issue? Can science be compatible with belief? Do you accept evolutionary theory?
I also believe in guided evolution, simply because evolution's too much of a realistic influence, but the amount of forethought that seemed to have gone into it is also astounding. If the universe is endless, than the settings for life were bound to happen somewhere, but to this degree?

4. What do you think are the most compelling arguments to not believe in God? Or, what do you think are the greatest challenges to peoples’ faith.
I think how heavily the bible, the only rallying point for the Christian religion, has been edited, reworded, and redone is the greatest challange. All the missing books and controversial ideas were taken out in a huge editing session in the 400's (I think) to make the Bible make more sense. If the bible really was a testament of a grand god, why would it be changed so ferviously?

Also, people blindly follow the bible without questioning its origins. The bible was literally written by various men. It comes from that man's perspective, and has been shaded with judgement from the writers. 20 people who have never met to each worked on a section of a book and then eventually had an editer clean it up. Whose to even say which part is actually from god and which from imagination?

The biggest argument I hear is "Well, they've found proof that Mount Everest was underwater at one time, so that proves the whole entirety of the bible." That was a bit overdramatized but you get my point. Most religions have a flood stroy. It's actually eerie how many do. So the world flooded and someone integrated it into part of their book, which was later turned into a part of the whole book. Great. But that really doesn't actualize the bible in its entirety. Come on, people!

5. Do you think there is such thing as “reasonable faith”? Or, do you think they are in conflict?
As I said above, guided evolution seems to be the only reasonable faith I got. Everything else is just beliefs.

6. Lastly, if you believe in God. What evidence do you have in favor of your belief?
I don't, and evidence isn't necessary. Believe what you will, live and let live, and quit fights and wars over stupid belief battles. It's your belief, you don't have to explain it to anyone. Simply believe in it.

That was fun!

Ah you must be so very new Decay. Welcome. Don't look like the weak member in a herd. They pick you off first.

But back to this. It appears that moral relativism has sunk it's claws firmly into the populace. Oh goodie.

1. I'm tempted to say something like "it seemed like a good idea at the time," but it's a personal choice.

2. People search for meaning all the time in their lives, and while some are doing it for selfish reasons, others do it because they believe it to be the right thing to believe. I've seen people convert in hospitals before dying of cancer a few months later, and I've seen people healed inexplicably from cancer who had enough faith to pray. Or perhaps had the right body capable of healing itself. Who knows?

3. I believe there is no real point in debating intelligent design vs. evolution. I believe that evolution is a form of intelligent design. And I'd like to believe that God is intelligent.

4. The greatest challenge to people's faith might be the self, but I also think it's other people. I will admit. Going to church and seeing some of the hypocritical ******** was pretty depressing and very difficult to take after spending time with people who are upfront about being evil, or lying, or just being criminals in general. But to trot out a mildly pithy statement, "Keep your eyes on Christians and you'll always be disappointed. Keep your eyes on God and you won't be."

5. See: Thomas Aquinas.

6. My evidence is the faith in things unseen.

1. If you believe in God, why do you believe?
I don't know that I believe in one. there's no proof that there isn't one, but there's no proof that stands up to scrutiny that there is one either. so, the two cancel each other out for me. I'm agnostic, towards the side of 'you need to convince me first'.

2. Why do you think others believe in God?
the first one I can think of is simply the want/need to believe in a god so they'll feel better about dying, or because the thought of going to heaven after death or whatever else a religion teaches makes it easier to keep living.

the second is the want/need to give reason to phenomena (ie miracles, freak accidents, the beginnings of 'life' as you want to interpret it, etc.) that haven't been explained yet. people in general seem to hate ambiguity, so if something doesn't make sense, they have to come up with something that makes things fit. thousands of years ago, if there was a huge storm, the people generally attributed it to a god being angry/sad/whatever because hey!, where else would it have come from? now that the science of weather is understood, the thought that storms come from a god venting its feelings is laughable and offensive at best (i.e. "Hurricane Katrina happened because of all the gays in New Orleans!" -- yes, that is an actual accusation, among other equally disgusting statements to further push certain people's morality agendas). the only difference between then and now is we have more information. and humans already know everything there is to know at this point (right? ), so what else could be responsible for the unexplainable other than a supreme being?

3. The most popular conflict between faith and reason is usually on the evolution/creationism controversy. What’s your take on the issue? Can science be compatible with belief? Do you accept evolutionary theory?
if you believe in a god, I think you could fairly easily rationalize God himself being responsible for evolution if it's explained convincingly enough, unless you take the King James version Bible literally. if science happens to works with your religion, then great. but I don't know how you can make science line up with a religious belief when something doesn't mix without changing either of them (if you change the religion, then what the hell are you doing calling it truth when you just change it whenever you feel like it?, and I don't know how the science part could possibly be changed).

4. What do you think are the most compelling arguments to not believe in God? Or, what do you think are the greatest challenges to peoples’ faith.
I think that my answers to #2 also fit here as far as saying how those reasons don't prove anything, at least.

wanting or needing something to be true, especially concerning objective matters like the existence of a god that's talked about in the Bible, doesn't make something exist (you can't just create the god that's talked about in the Bible with your mind). I could will the sun to turn purple all day long, but just because I want it to happen doesn't mean it's going to happen or ever will (unless you live in a DBZ series). I very well will just have to deal with the fact that whenever I attempt to look at the sun, it will look yellow-y white and not purple. that just sucks.

to add to that, many people seem to just take what they've heard since childhood as fact and stick with it for tradition's sake. sometimes people will believe in a god or church simply because they were raised to and they don't want to think about it too much. those same people would be saying the same thing about a different religion if they'd been born on the other side of the country/world with a different upbringing. being raised at the end of generations of a religious tradition doesn't necessarily make that tradition accurate (or even good), either.

5. Do you think there is such thing as “reasonable faith”? Or, do you think they are in conflict?
maybe, but I don't think so. I'd say the more inclined you are in one way (going off of facts instead of faith, or vice versa), you're going to have an even lesser chance of being able to see it the other way when confronted.

6. Lastly, if you believe in God. What evidence do you have in favor of your belief?
all the proof I need is this feeling in my heart. ..........or is that my burrito talking?

Originally Posted by Aberinkula

That stuff stays in my head, I don't let beliefs get in font of my actions.

]
Are you sure about this? I’m not sure this is possible. But, if by “beliefs” you mean “religious beliefs” (Fasteriskhead brought up the semantics error in later point with me), well, that’s admirable of you.

Originally Posted by Aberinkula

4. But stuff like the human veins and stuff, seems too complicated. Why would god go scientific and make are body so complex? It's not like we're walking Rubix Cubes that need solving lol.

This is interesting. The appearance of complexity is actually something that would be an argument against a designer? Interesting point. Perhaps a good one. If Intelligent Design assumes that complexity inductively fills the challenge of the complexity with a “Designer” it begs the question: what’s the better mousetrap? The more complex or the less complex? Indeed, the complexity of our bodies also makes some of our medical dilemmas more potent than if we had simpler mechanisms to achieve the same ends (metabolic, etc.). For example, study our digestive system- specifically the Kidneys. They are frankly poor examples of “design”. They function by absorbing water, losing water, re-absorbing water, and hopefully absorbing enough to maintain a gradient that will permit waste removal. Compare that with a dialysis machine which achieves the same outcome in a single, smooth step. Couldn’t God have made something a bit simpler and efficient?

Originally Posted by Rachmaninoff

Compelling arguments? Nothing beyond the obvious that proving such a thing is in my mind, not really possible.

No one is suggesting a smoking gun, I hope. In fact, there shouldn’t be “negative” proof, really since you can’t logically prove a negative (disprove anything). We should all acknowledge the burden of proof is on the affirmative case (God), however it might be worth discussing some of the challenges faith “faces”.

Originally Posted by Retribution

Well, it's kind of judgmental for me to make sweeping generalizations when everyone's reason is different.

First, I don’t think anyone’s going to be making sweeping generalizations. The idea is for everyone to consider the question as they have already—putting themselves in the shoes of believers if necessary.

Second, I think this is, at least, a sociologically relevant question. There have been studies taken asking the same two questions (Why do you believe? Why do you think others believe?) (1). If there’s any debate about faith (and why shouldn’t there be?) it’s good to know the reasons for believing in the supernatural.

Originally Posted by SunfallE

Ironically I have no issue with the concept of evil disproving something like God. However that ties into the Mormon beliefs that I was raised with [though I no longer follow that faith] since in that belief the concept that you have to make your own choices, good or bad, is something I agree with regardless of religion.

You bring up a good point SunfallE. However, this begs the question (Rach brought it up earlier in a hypothetical): Is our “will” free?

Fasteriskhead, excellent post. I appreciate the depth of thought you’re contributing to the topic.

Originally Posted by Fasteriskhead

The problem starts with the word "belief": when someone says they believe in God, how should we understand this? Usually when we say "believe" we mean that a certain person holds something to be true. So for instance, if I say, "I believe the new season of Haruhi won't be as great as the first one," I mean that I have considered a certain fact (the quality of the new Haruhi season) that looks like it could go one way or another, and for various reasons (patterns I may have spotted from past shows, or whatever) I have decided that one of those options is the case to the exclusion of the others.

I’m not sure your analogy works here. Because the existence of something is different than the qualitative nature of something. Your belief that Haruhi won’t be as great as the first still assumes, a priori, that Haruhi exists.

A better analogy of this might be: I have no idea what Haruhi is. You talk to me about the show (I’m assuming it’s an anime?) and tell me about how “great” it is. I would (as a skeptic) first likely ask, “What is Haruhi?” If you were to show me the DVD, let me watch the show, and experience it—that would be sufficient to prove to me that Haruhi indeed exists and I could later come to some subjective judgment about it later.

However, if you were to say something like. “Haruhi plays in your heart when you believe in Harhui. It’s a fantastic show, but it’s invisible and quite supernatural. But if you truly believe, you will get to watch Haruhi in your mind.” That would be quite another thing to consider.

Originally Posted by Fasteriskhead

But belief in God might be something different. Of course, depending on how the word "God" is used it might not be - I might really believe that God exists in the same way that I might believe something about Haruhi's quality (and I think when people argue that it's more likely or less likely, or more reasonable or less reasonable, that God exists, that they are using the word in this way). The usual understanding of God, though, is of something all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and all-loving - what St. Anselm called "that than which nothing greater can be imagined." These kinds of terms stretch our language and our ideas to the breaking point (maybe beyond). And properly speaking, I don't think we (us humans) can make sense of such a thing. That, presumably, is why the same St. Anselm also says that God is not only that than which nothing greater can be thought, but also "something greater than can be thought." And with that, we hit upon the very strange fact that atheists and the (more thoughtful) believers actually have a lot in common. Atheists will look upon the concept of God - something all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. - and say that this idea can't be understood, that we could never possibly perceive or experience such a being. The believers (if they have given it some thought) will also say that God can neither be understood nor really experienced (at least, within natural means). The atheists infer from this that God could never possibly exist, while the believers find that this is the only being that could ever deserve the name God - precisely because it's beyond such comprehension. The atheist thesis that if God existed then God would have to be completely unlike every other being is the basic starting point of theology. Justifiably so: what would a God be, if it were an easily digestible object of knowledge like any other? If I can be forgiven for quoting Kierkegaard: "If I can grasp God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do so I must believe." When I believe something about Haruhi, I do so because I can conceive the show in various ways (as related to certain states of affairs). God, by our definition, is inconceivable. Belief in God, when it happens, thus has to work in a way completely alien to every other kind of belief. This is nicely summed up by Luther's famous line that "faith is permitting ourselves to be seized by the things we do not see."

(I added the bold emphasis) Interesting, but St. Anselm’s ontological proof didn’t assume a God transcending interaction with the natural world, did he? That’s the difference. Correspondingly, Thomistic theology also arranges a “rank” of being where God’s “subjectivity” is our “objectivity”. That is, what we observe as reality is a plaything for an omnipotent being like God, answering the question “is God beholden to truth?” with “No, God decides Truth, God is Truth.” I guess that’s why he breaks his own rules so much in the Bible.

Regardless, I think it’s important that you bring up Kierkegaard. He was a big fan of the perceived “absurd” nature of God, where God can promise one thing and tell you to break his promise (Abraham sacrificing Isaac being Kierkegaard’s golden example). Kierkegaard followed this to the conclusion that God must be “above” reason.

Hiedegger (and your post sort of reminds me of his work) nails Kierkegaard and Anselm by re-examining the ontological dilemma. He questions: If God is so big and beyond any effort to constrain by normal definitions, what about “existence”? Is God outside of existence? Doesn’t God, if he exist, necessarily constrained by the actual dichotomy of existence and non-existence?

Even if we entertain Anselm’s challenge, what other attributes does God take? God is beyond the ultimate notion of “good”, “true”, “powerful”; why not “evil” “smelly” “nonexistent”? A transcendental notion of God opens up a bigger gap to stick God into, but that’s not the sort of God people believe in. They believe in a God that exists (even if outside space and time) and seems to interact with us (via revelation, holy text, and sometimes prophets or incarnations of God).

Originally Posted by Fasteriskhead

Broadly speaking, having faith in God means not knowing what it is you have faith in. This is clear even in Christian literature, sometimes agonizingly so: Augustine, the best example, constantly doubts whether his conversion was "real" or just some momentary sense of pleasure, or even a trick by the devil. That he nevertheless pressed on (despite apparently recognizing that his "conversion" may have been the result of something he had eaten earlier that day) indicates not an "irrational belief" - what, exactly, would he be holding as true? - but rather a sort of practical absurdity. That, it seems to me, is more typical of faith than "belief" of the usual sort: faith is a sort of state wherein one acts in a way which even to oneself makes no real sense and has no real justification, while one nevertheless wishes (or even expects) that at some place, at some time, at some level, those actions will come to mean something.

I agree, good point.

Originally Posted by Fasteriskhead

As I tried to say above, this is not the case with God, since a scientifically knowable God wouldn't be God. Science can, as Laplace once said, do without the assumption of God, but that also means it can speak neither for nor against such a being.

Overall, I concur with most of what you’ve said. I’m certainly not arguing with the idea that science cannot comment on the existence of “God”. However, what about where God supposedly interacts with the natural world in the form of miracles? Aren’t these scientific questions. What about when Elijah has God “stop the Sun” in the sky for three days so that he may finish a battle?

Originally Posted by Fasteriskhead

All right, that's all. If you've read this all the way through, thank you for the effort. I hope I've been reasonably clear, at least; in any case, I don't think I could do very much better.

I’ve had a jolly time reading your post. I’m looking forward to further discussion.

Originally Posted by Decay

If I could remember more of the several Psychology classes I took and went all Freud on you

No worries. You can spare us the Freud. :-p

Originally Posted by Decay

The biggest argument I hear is "Well, they've found proof that Mount Everest was underwater at one time, so that proves the whole entirety of the bible." That was a bit overdramatized but you get my point. Most religions have a flood stroy. It's actually eerie how many do.

I think a better explanation is because most large cultures have been traditionally costal (Assyrians, Egyptians, Chinese, Babylonians, Romans, etc.). You’ll probably note an absence of flood stories for, say, northern European cultures, mid-north American cultures.

Originally Posted by Decay

I don't, and evidence isn't necessary. Believe what you will, live and let live, and quit fights and wars over stupid belief battles. It's your belief, you don't have to explain it to anyone. Simply believe in it.
That was fun!

I don’t think this is a good idea. Of course, everyone is free to believe what they choose. But wanting to believe in something or believing in something without evidence begs the question to me: Is it true?

Hey Raiha, been a long time… how have you been?

Originally Posted by Raiha

But back to this. It appears that moral relativism has sunk it's claws firmly into the populace. Oh goodie.

I think you’ve got a point. I think a postmodern approach to the debate is intellectually bankrupt.

Originally Posted by Raiha

5.See: Thomas Aquinas.

Which of his “proofs” are still valid today?

Originally Posted by Raiha

6. My evidence is the faith in things unseen.

This is awfully circular. To put it another way: Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, my evidence is faith, my evidence is the absence of evidence??

I’ll post my replies when I get back from travel planning.


Source:
(1) Michael Shermer and Frank J. Sulloway, “Religion and Belief in God: An empirical Study,” in press 2006. Survey obtained by Survey Sampling, Inc.
The discussion of the survey’s results and interpretation of data is well furnished in Shermer’s book Why Darwin Matters.

Another, and very odd belief I used to believe, was the thouight taht maybe we are just, well, a digital universe. It seems like a kiddie story more than a true belief. But I did, and I still do a bit.

One reason why I believe/ed that theory was the complexity of our universe. The big bang could be discribed as a mass creation of multiple programs, different galaxies are sub-structures within the massive Universal Structure. Ghosts and spirits could be data left behind after deletion(death) that suffered a malfunction (uncomplete deletion). People could assume our roles and it would further from there, they control us, and when they're finished with us, we die. In other words, suffer deletion.

It's an odd theory, but It's plausable. After all, you can't say any religion is foolish/false, how would you know if it's not right or not? In religion theres nothing that sounds too far fetched. But I do have something against Scientology. It was founded by a guy who WROTE sci-fi stories... ugh.