Reason to Believe

[Mock Turtle]

So you can’t just choose to believe what I’m saying then?

I can't believe that you have made any decisions without a bias attached - I had no such 'teaching' and have come to a very different conclusion. I too had to go to Scout services and no doubt did my bit singing away but by then I had already decided religions were not reflections of reality. Nothing ever changed in that regard since I am more scientifically inclined, and no evidence I have ever come across regarding religion has passed the plausibility test. And I'm sorry, we do make conscious decisions. It's not just down to our unconscious minds. I think what you are referring to is our emotions, where often it this which tends to attract any to religion. I never felt the need. And it's not as if I haven't done any research here. I have copies of the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, I Ching, but they are all pretty much the same. It all boils down to the basic phenomena surrounding most of these and as to whether it fits into my overall understanding of reality. And it just doesn't.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don't see religion separate from a way of life. Religion at its core is basically: gratitude,self care, service say giving, balance, and other values. We can live and practice religion (sectional life)by ritual(meditate, take care family, get out daily...by affirmation,encouraging self you can succeed, being with people who doesn't conflict with your values. Its a way of living. Without religion-form of gratitude,-what and how do you "express" thanks.

Like many I would presume, I just try to live a basically moral life guided by the simplest of concepts and enshrined in most religions - that is, the Golden Rule (or actually the inverse). if one doesn't believe in a god there are no thanks to express, apart from to nature itself which has produced us. I think we have a problem with understanding since I have never really had a religion and you possibly will always have had. And there appears to be an issue as to whether we could not have equally rewarding lives. You see a belief system as a necessity and I just don't.

I will say, since you appear to be a Buddhist, that this belief system is the most sensible of the many that I have looked at.

 

[Milton Platt]

(One of my favourite Tim Hardin songs, lol)

I am sure this has been asked many times, but any willing to contribute would be appreciated. Given all the various religious beliefs, what exactly caused you to accept one particular belief over another given that there are essentially five choices, and any reasons for doing so:

1. Leave it all in the air and make no choice.
2. Believe that all religions are essentially correct in their own way - with of course reservations.
3. Believe that some religions are essentially correct but others are not - again with reservations.
4. Believe that one religion is true and all the rest necessarily are false - with reservations.
5. Not believing any religion to be true - even though much of what they espouse will be true, or at least valuable.

For me it is the last. My reason? Lack of evidence (or not sufficient unbiased evidence to be exact), hence the default position - that none are true. The last is the default position, rather than the first I believe, because one really does need to prove an assertion if one wants others to believe it. After all, religions make claims, but whether one accepts these claims or not is if one believes the evidence or not. I can understand some having the first belief but not really for those having the middle three, particularly given the number of different beliefs.

Your reasons then?

number 5 is the most plausible, but with perhaps a bit of clarification. It is not necessary to believe a proposition is either true or false, simply that it has not met the burden of proof.
The gum ball analogy demonstrates:
If someone came to me with a jar filled with gum balls and said, "Do you believe there are an even number of gum balls in the jar", I would say "No". That does not mean I believe there are an odd number of gum balls in the jar. It only means I have not been given sufficient evidence to believe either proposition.

 

[Mock Turtle]

number 5 is the most plausible, but with perhaps a bit of clarification. It is not necessary to believe a proposition is either true or false, simply that it has not met the burden of proof.
The gum ball analogy demonstrates:
If someone came to me with a jar filled with gum balls and said, "Do you believe there are an even number of gum balls in the jar", I would say "No". That does not mean I believe there are an odd number of gum balls in the jar. It only means I have not been given sufficient evidence to believe either proposition.

True. What I tend to believe, that to be believable something needs to pass a plausibility test given the current state of knowledge and religions mostly just do not do that for me. Claims are made and fail to pass the test - in my opinion.

 

[InChrist]

4. Believe that one religion is true and all the rest necessarily are false - with reservations.

Your reasons then?

At one time I used to believe (#4) that there was one true religion somewhere and I was searching for this true religion. I was raised Catholic and the Catholic church claims to be the true religion with the pope, God's representative on earth. Later after becoming disillusioned with the Catholicism and trying out a few eastern religions or often ignoring religion for a period of years, I joined the Mormon church which also claims to be the true church. After leaving Mormonism, I looked into another group claiming to be the true church. The spiritual tension in my life was becoming intense as I continued attempting to find this true church wherever it was. Then at one point, a light came on and I knew I needed to know the true God and met Jesus Christ. I realized then that any church claiming to be the true church was simply a false religion or cult. It was not a religion I needed, but a real, living, relationship with the Person of God, the Creator of heaven and earth

 

[BilliardsBall]

(One of my favourite Tim Hardin songs, lol)

I am sure this has been asked many times, but any willing to contribute would be appreciated. Given all the various religious beliefs, what exactly caused you to accept one particular belief over another given that there are essentially five choices, and any reasons for doing so:

1. Leave it all in the air and make no choice.
2. Believe that all religions are essentially correct in their own way - with of course reservations.
3. Believe that some religions are essentially correct but others are not - again with reservations.
4. Believe that one religion is true and all the rest necessarily are false - with reservations.
5. Not believing any religion to be true - even though much of what they espouse will be true, or at least valuable.

For me it is the last. My reason? Lack of evidence (or not sufficient unbiased evidence to be exact), hence the default position - that none are true. The last is the default position, rather than the first I believe, because one really does need to prove an assertion if one wants others to believe it. After all, religions make claims, but whether one accepts these claims or not is if one believes the evidence or not. I can understand some having the first belief but not really for those having the middle three, particularly given the number of different beliefs.

Your reasons then?

I think 3 and 4 are the same thing if you use a Venn or Boolean thought.

That's me--Christianity is true and there is some falsehood and some truth in other beliefs, even atheism.

 

[Katzpur]

At one time I used to believe (#4) that there was one true religion somewhere and I was searching for this true religion. I was raised Catholic and the Catholic church claims to be the true religion with the pope, God's representative on earth. Later after becoming disillusioned with the Catholicism and trying out a few eastern religions or often ignoring religion for a period of years, I joined the Mormon church which also claims to be the true church. After leaving Mormonism, I looked into another group claiming to be the true church. The spiritual tension in my life was becoming intense as I continued attempting to find this true church wherever it was. Then at one point, a light came on and I knew I needed to know the true God and met Jesus Christ. I realized then that any church claiming to be the true church was simply a false religion or cult. It was not a religion I needed, but a real, living, relationship with the Person of God, the Creator of heaven and earth

Anyone who looks to Jesus Christ can have "a real, living relationship" with Him. Members of churches you don't personally like are not disqualified from having this blessing.

 

[HonestJoe]

It all boils down to the basic phenomena surrounding most of these and as to whether it fits into my overall understanding of reality. And it just doesn't.

Nothing you've said contradicts my position. We've assessed the evidence and reached a conclusion. We didn't choose what conclusion to reach, it was an inevitable consequence of that evidence and how our minds happen to work. We couldn't decide that we're going to be a committed Hindu this week (for example), even if we really wanted to. For the idea that theological belief (or the lack thereof) is a choice to be true, that would have to be possible.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Like many I would presume, I just try to live a basically moral life guided by the simplest of concepts and enshrined in most religions - that is, the Golden Rule (or actually the inverse). if one doesn't believe in a god there are no thanks to express, apart from to nature itself which has produced us. I think we have a problem with understanding since I have never really had a religion and you possibly will always have had. And there appears to be an issue as to whether we could not have equally rewarding lives. You see a belief system as a necessity and I just don't.

I will say, since you appear to be a Buddhist, that this belief system is the most sensible of the many that I have looked at.

Hmm. Buddhism is very nice when it comes to instruction and putting things in perspective. Revering ancestors and things like that are admittedly more personal especially given cultural relations I have to it more so than Buddhism.

I wasn't raised religious. I've only been christian four years of my adult life and Buddhist off and on in practice. So, with gratitude, it's not to someone or something. It's just an appreciation for the life you have not the life you are given type of thing.

Many non-religious say they live by the golden rule. I just think the word religion throws most of them off not so what it represents at its core. It gets too political when religion does not need to be so. Everyone sees things differently.

 

[blü 2]

1. Leave it all in the air and make no choice.
2. Believe that all religions are essentially correct in their own way - with of course reservations.
3. Believe that some religions are essentially correct but others are not - again with reservations.
4. Believe that one religion is true and all the rest necessarily are false - with reservations.
5. Not believing any religion to be true - even though much of what they espouse will be true, or at least valuable.

I'm a 5.

I've always had the wish to know how reality works. (Curiosity is built into our genes.) In my case the result has been placing the question, What's true in reality? at the top of my list. I'm also reasonably skeptical by nature.

At first I regarded the lack of evidence for God, or anything supernatural, as decisive. Absence of evidence on such a scale is evidence of absence, no matter what anyone says.

More lately it's occurred to me that I don't know what a real god is. I've never seen a definition of 'god' or 'God' such that if we found a candidate, we could tell whether it was a god / God or not. In fact all the definitions carefully avoid making 'god' real, and call [him] 'spiritual', 'immaterial', 'incorporeal' and so on. The trouble with those adjectives is that there's no objective test that can distinguish the 'spiritual' or the 'immaterial' (&c) from the imaginary.

So as far as I can tell, not only does no one else know a useful definition of 'god', but none of the believers is interested in finding one.

It follows that all gods, all supernatural phenomena, and for that matter all claims of ESP, exist only as things imagined in individual brains.

Since that's a conclusion from evidence, it can be refuted by evidence. A satisfactory definition of a supernatural being, followed by a satisfactory demonstration of one, would do the trick. But then it wouldn't be faith, would it.

 

[Trailblazer]

So as far as I can tell, not only does no one else know a useful definition of 'god', but none of the believers is interested in finding one.

It follows that all gods, all supernatural phenomena, and for that matter all claims of ESP, exist only as things imagined in individual brains.

No, that is not a logical conclusion since other possibilities exist.
One possibility is that God is above definition, but God still exists.
We can know some of God's attributes but that does not define God because we can never know the Essence of God.

Since that's a conclusion from evidence, it can be refuted by evidence. A satisfactory definition of a supernatural being, followed by a satisfactory demonstration of one, would do the trick. But then it wouldn't be faith, would it.

No it wouldn't be faith if we had proof, and that is one reason God is not going to prove He exists. There is evidence but no proof:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

 

[Unveiled Artist]

At one time I used to believe (#4) that there was one true religion somewhere and I was searching for this true religion. I was raised Catholic and the Catholic church claims to be the true religion with the pope, God's representative on earth. Later after becoming disillusioned with the Catholicism and trying out a few eastern religions or often ignoring religion for a period of years, I joined the Mormon church which also claims to be the true church. After leaving Mormonism, I looked into another group claiming to be the true church. The spiritual tension in my life was becoming intense as I continued attempting to find this true church wherever it was. Then at one point, a light came on and I knew I needed to know the true God and met Jesus Christ. I realized then that any church claiming to be the true church was simply a false religion or cult. It was not a religion I needed, but a real, living, relationship with the Person of God, the Creator of heaven and earth

Did finding christ made you more aware of the negative cults in other churches (making your view the true view?) or does christ make you see the good in all christians no matter where they are in their walk with christ?

When I went into the church, I had negative thoughts. It wasnt catholicism it was christianity in general; all denominations. I left because it didnt "feel" right inside.

Finding your true faith should change ones perspective other people more postively, right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Anyone who looks to Jesus Christ can have "a real, living relationship" with Him.

The hundred-dollar question is how you have that relationship with Jesus?
How do you know it is Jesus you are relating to?

 

[Grandliseur]

What has my survival value got to do with any truth?

Truth can be intricately connected to survival. In the case of the Christian beliefs, this is said:

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; 15 that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. 18 He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.​

Like our knowledge about the truth of the workings of our technology permits us to open a car, turn the key that turns the engine on and drive to work, this way, the truth about what is real and what is a lie, can lead to life if a person follows the rules, obeys the edicts, do what we were told to do.

As my old dead father said, doing nothing will get you nothing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

(One of my favourite Tim Hardin songs, lol)

I am sure this has been asked many times, but any willing to contribute would be appreciated. Given all the various religious beliefs, what exactly caused you to accept one particular belief over another given that there are essentially five choices, and any reasons for doing so:

1. Leave it all in the air and make no choice.
2. Believe that all religions are essentially correct in their own way - with of course reservations.
3. Believe that some religions are essentially correct but others are not - again with reservations.
4. Believe that one religion is true and all the rest necessarily are false - with reservations.
5. Not believing any religion to be true - even though much of what they espouse will be true, or at least valuable.

For me it is the last. My reason? Lack of evidence (or not sufficient unbiased evidence to be exact), hence the default position - that none are true. The last is the default position, rather than the first I believe, because one really does need to prove an assertion if one wants others to believe it. After all, religions make claims, but whether one accepts these claims or not is if one believes the evidence or not. I can understand some having the first belief but not really for those having the middle three, particularly given the number of different beliefs.

Your reasons then?

It certainly seems to me you left out the single most important reason that almost (not quite) all human beings believe in whichever faith they do: because they were taught to from before they could begin to reason, by those they were genetically predisposed to believe and trust most. In other words, the most complete and effective form of brainwashing imaginable.

Strong enough, in fact, to overcome even the ability to reason independently that they achieve later in life.

 

[blü 2]

No, that is not a logical conclusion since other possibilities exist.
One possibility is that God is above definition, but God still exists.

No, 'above definition' is not a category I recognize. It sounds like a dodgy name for 'undefined'. Or put it this way: what test will tell me whether something is 'above definition' or not?

We can know some of God's attributes but that does not define God because we can never know the Essence of God.

In saying that, aren't you just confirming that God exists only as something imagined, and has no objective existence? How could something real have those qualities?

For example 'dark matter' is the name for a problem, not a thing ─ we observe a phenomenon, we determine that we can't explain it, and then we hypothesize and test answers until, touch wood, we find one that fits. If God is such a problem, on what observations is the problem derived, and why is no one proposing and testing possible explanations, as would be natural for something real?

No it wouldn't be faith if we had proof, and that is one reason God is not going to prove He exists.

Such a god could never complain about not being believed in, then. And would have no moral basis for punishing living nonbelievers or discriminating against them postmortally.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It is ironic to me that one of the principal points of evolutionary doctrine is that of 'the survival of fittest.'

The reason that this is ironic to me is that believing in a religious doctrine and God - is all about survival: how to attain survival, even extremely long life.

Thus, when I see your post, the first thing that comes to mind is - what do you get out of your stance?! If you gain nothing that aids in your prolonged survival, it has little value in my eyes.

If God was known to simply exist, but it was also known that he had nothing to offer us gnats on this earth - his existence would be kind of seeing a star that is 1000's of light-years distant, interesting, but in the end, without any impact or importance on my life.

The problem remains that there is no verifibale evidence to conclude that believing in any partucular religious doctrin will actually aid or prolong anyone's survival.

 

[Grandliseur]

there is no verifibale evidence to conclude that believing in any partucular religious doctrin will actually aid or prolong anyone's survival.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, it is said; similarly, evidence is obviously a matter of paradigm, perception, the person's basic belief system. There has not been a promise of prolonged life in this world of ours. The promise is somewhat like applying for entry into a university and later on after the evaluations have finished, you find out what your status is.

And, it is not afterlife; death is the return to non-existence.

 

[Katzpur]

The hundred-dollar question is how you have that relationship with Jesus?
How do you know it is Jesus you are relating to?

You ask questions that are impossible to answer. I know what I feel, and that's all anyone can know (with respect to spiritual knowledge, that is).

 

[Trailblazer]

No, 'above definition' is not a category I recognize. It sounds like a dodgy name for 'undefined'. Or put it this way: what test will tell me whether something is 'above definition' or not?

I understand your point, but there is no test for God since God is not an objective reality.

In saying that, aren't you just confirming that God exists only as something imagined, and has no objective existence? How could something real have those qualities?

No, I believe God exists but there is no objective evidence of God’s existence since God is immaterial, and this is why God cannot be proven. You know the attributes of God from what the Messengers of God reveal about God, but the Messengers do not reveal anything about the Essence (intrinsic nature) of God because nobody knows the Essence of God except God.

For example 'dark matter' is the name for a problem, not a thing ─ we observe a phenomenon, we determine that we can't explain it, and then we hypothesize and test answers until, touch wood, we find one that fits. If God is such a problem, on what observations is the problem derived, and why is no one proposing and testing possible explanations, as would be natural for something real?

Because God has said that He is above testing and explanations. God wants to keep His Essence hidden and only reveal (a) His attributes and (b) His will. Logically speaking, if God is omnipotent then we cannot make God reveal His Essence, can we?

Such a god could never complain about not being believed in, then. And would have no moral basis for punishing living nonbelievers or discriminating against them postmortally.

You are correct. God is not complaining about not being believed. It does not matter to God whether we believe because God is fully self-sufficient, above the need for any of His creatures or their belief.

“Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 85

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 140

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess. If ye believe, to your own behoof will ye believe; and if ye believe not, ye yourselves will suffer.” Gleanings, p. 148

God is not going to punish nonbelievers. Any punishment they might incur would be because they missed out on what they could have had if they had believed.

“He who shall accept and believe, shall receive his reward; and he who shall turn away, shall receive none other than his own punishment.” Gleanings, p. 339

So it would be self inflicted punishment. There is a reward for believing but I do not know of a specific punishment for not believing, nor is there anything to indicate that God is doling out the rewards and punishments.

Of course, I am not a Christian, so I believe a bit differently about all of this.