Reason to Believe

[Grandliseur]

Well, I won't, but thanks for being so caring.

And we do seem to have a gulf between what we regard as being common sense (or reality) - evidence versus faith - eeny, meeny - the first wins.

Yeah, sure evidence. My car, computer, table, shoes, socks -- they all make themselves. What fine evidence you guys have. DNA programming that programs itself and even works when the DNA translator program needed to read the DNA code is absent.

So, you believe in your evidence and I believe in my evidence. Happy hunting.

 

[HonestJoe]

Except it is a choice as to whether you accept any evidence or not.

So you could, for example, choose to accept the Bible as definitive and unquestionable evidence for the existence of the Christian god? Could you just do that now, just temporarily; choose to be a committed Christian for a couple of minutes then choose to go back to being a non-believer?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yeah, sure evidence. My car, computer, table, shoes, socks -- they all make themselves. What fine evidence you guys have. DNA programming that programs itself and even works when the DNA translator program needed to read the DNA code is absent.

So, you believe in your evidence and I believe in my evidence. Happy hunting.

Being an ex-engineer, I can quite understand how all (or most of) the mentioned articles come into existence, and I often have some ability in understanding how they work, how to design them, and the science that underlies them. I also have a reasonable understanding of evolution, evolutionary psychology, etc., and some understanding of the biology (not my best subject) that determines how we come into existence via DNA and genetics.

Yes, that is enough evidence for me.

 

[Grandliseur]

Being an ex-engineer, I can quite understand how all (or most of) the mentioned articles come into existence, and I often have some ability in understanding how they work, how to design them, and the science that underlies them. I also have a reasonable understanding of evolution, evolutionary psychology, etc., and some understanding of the biology (not my best subject) that determines how we come into existence via DNA and genetics.

Yes, that is enough evidence for me.

We each survive on our own. You on your choices, me on mine. As long as you are happy with your choice and realize that a time may come, if we are right, that when it comes, you will no longer have the choice to change your stance. What I am saying is that this choice of yours is a serious one. What you choose is of no import to me; after all, it is your choice and life.

The reason I even write this is because you asked for a reason to believe. I don't care whether you believe or not; I care that I was asked a question; this I have to answer for before God and will be held responsible for if I don't do what I can to give you my 1 cent worth.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So you could, for example, choose to accept the Bible as definitive and unquestionable evidence for the existence of the Christian god? Could you just do that now, just temporarily; choose to be a committed Christian for a couple of minutes then choose to go back to being a non-believer?

Why would I do that when I have already said I regard any written material from the past as suspect. If there were multiple independent, unbiased and accurate accounts from long ago, which is probably an impossibility actually given the lack of knowledge, education, etc., around at the time, then it might be feasible to assess such evidence. As it stands, this is not possible, and as mentioned, it is just a choice as to whether you accept that which is espoused as being accurate or in any way reflective of the truth or not. Many of us without a religious belief just cannot do so.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We each survive on our own. You on your choices, me on mine. As long as you are happy with your choice and realize that a time may come, if we are right, that when it comes, you will no longer have the choice to change your stance. What I am saying is that this choice of yours is a serious one. What you choose is of no import to me; after all, it is your choice and life.

I am quite happy, thank you. I have spent all my life in trying to be consistent in my beliefs and I'm afraid that having a religious belief - any belief - would detract from doing so. It would be inconsistent with my life. I don't doubt that religion makes sense to so many, but not to me.

The reason I even write this is because you asked for a reason to believe. I don't care whether you believe or not; I care that I was asked a question; this I have to answer for before God and will be held responsible for if I don't do what I can to give you my 1 cent worth.

Well, again, rest peaceful, since my life is my responsibility, and if I have to account for anything in my life at the right time then so be it. I just don't believe that will happen though.

 

[Erebus]

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 honestly kind of torn between 2 and 5. To me, truth is often relative and religions tend to incorporate a lot of elements that aren't necessarily objectively right or wrong. It may always be true that 1+1=2 but it isn't always true that red is the best colour if you follow?

So when we look at the stories behind the various religions on offer, I don't tend to assume that they are literally true. I consider myself Pagan but don't believe that Fenrir will literally swallow the sun. I also don't believe that Prometheus created man out of mud or was punished for stealing fire. If we look at the mythology and folklore surrounding religion and base its worth on whether or not it's literally true, then I'm definitely more in line with option 5.

However, I've always maintained that it's a mistake to view religion in that manner. Certainly plenty of people adopt that perspective and some religions encourage it more than others. It's not something I personally find useful though. What I do find useful is to take on board the lessons of the various religions. Many of the stories surrounding various faiths have some insight into humanity or some form of moral guidance (which to me is inherently subjective and therefore the "red is the best colour" form of truth). Even the terrible stories and commands that have caused, and still cause, a great deal of harm have some element of truth to them. One of the more unfortunate lessons about the nature of humanity can be found in people's willingness to believe in eternal torture as good and just for example.


Viewed from that perspective, I'm possibly more in line with option 2, although number 5 still seems to fit.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The actual definition Religion or the political definition of the word?

Anything that involved a creator or creative force really. I'm a bit agnostic with regards this. I just don't know. But as to any explanations via religious belief, they have no meaning for me since I am just too aware of human failings. I think the origins for religious belief come from our innate search for meaning in all things and our innate capacity to make errors - both just aspects of our human nature. Some appear to accept things more easily than others I think, and I would see myself in the latter camp, more cautious as to any decision-making.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm honestly kind of torn between 2 and 5. To me, truth is often relative and religions tend to incorporate a lot of elements that aren't necessarily objectively right or wrong. It may always be true that 1+1=2 but it isn't always true that red is the best colour if you follow?

So when we look at the stories behind the various religions on offer, I don't tend to assume that they are literally true. I consider myself Pagan but don't believe that Fenrir will literally swallow the sun. I also don't believe that Prometheus created man out of mud or was punished for stealing fire. If we look at the mythology and folklore surrounding religion and base its worth on whether or not it's literally true, then I'm definitely more in line with option 5.

However, I've always maintained that it's a mistake to view religion in that manner. Certainly plenty of people adopt that perspective and some religions encourage it more than others. It's not something I personally find useful though. What I do find useful is to take on board the lessons of the various religions. Many of the stories surrounding various faiths have some insight into humanity or some form of moral guidance (which to me is inherently subjective and therefore the "red is the best colour" form of truth). Even the terrible stories and commands that have caused, and still cause, a great deal of harm have some element of truth to them. One of the more unfortunate lessons about the nature of humanity can be found in people's willingness to believe in eternal torture as good and just for example.


Viewed from that perspective, I'm possibly more in line with option 2, although number 5 still seems to fit.

I'm hardly one to doubt the value that religions have brought and continue to do so. I'm not that cynical. But actually, I do tend to believe that overall religions have been mankind's worst invention yet, although I would be open to proposals as to others. The benefits they have brought might be compared with the deficits, and currently I have a good few dozen reasons why they have been more bad for us than good for us. I can understand why they developed and it was probably inevitable but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have benefited us overall. Just my opinion.

 

[HonestJoe]

Many of us without a religious belief just cannot do so.

If you can’t do something, you’re literally incapable of doing so, how can you call it a choice? A choice is something you could do by definition. I can’t believe 2+2=5, that isn’t a choice. I can’t run at 100mph, that isn’t a choice. I can’t change your mind on this, that isn’t a choice.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you can’t do something, you’re literally incapable of doing so, how can you call it a choice? A choice is something you could do by definition. I can’t believe 2+2=5, that isn’t a choice. I can’t run at 100mph, that isn’t a choice. I can’t change your mind on this, that isn’t a choice.

Can you say the same about your belief? Could you change?

 

[HonestJoe]

Can you say the same about your belief? Could you change?

If you could provide convincing evidence sure, but I think that would be difficult given that we’re talking about the very fundamental definitions of the words choice and belief. We’re not really disagreeing on the facts, just the terminology. I think he terminology is important though, because if not accepting particular religious beliefs is defined as a choice, it can too easily become an expectation or requirement backed up with threats and punishments (as it commonly was in the past and still is in some places today).

 

[Grandliseur]

I am quite happy, thank you. I have spent all my life in trying to be consistent in my beliefs and I'm afraid that having a religious belief - any belief - would detract from doing so. It would be inconsistent with my life. I don't doubt that religion makes sense to so many, but not to me.



Well, again, rest peaceful, since my life is my responsibility, and if I have to account for anything in my life at the right time then so be it. I just don't believe that will happen though.

You got it. Hope you enjoy what you have.
We cannot have other people making that kind of decisions for us, no matter who we are.

 

[Erebus]

I'm hardly one to doubt the value that religions have brought and continue to do so. I'm not that cynical. But actually, I do tend to believe that overall religions have been mankind's worst invention yet, although I would be open to proposals as to others. The benefits they have brought might be compared with the deficits, and currently I have a good few dozen reasons why they have been more bad for us than good for us. I can understand why they developed and it was probably inevitable but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have benefited us overall. Just my opinion.

You could well be right. Benefit and harm are themselves largely subjective and so I can't say, "no, you're provably wrong to think that." There's certainly no doubt that religion has been a very real cause of suffering over the centuries.

Perhaps this is my misanthropy coming through but I do suspect that if religion never existed, humanity would probably have just found something else to excuse its atrocities. After all, sheer limitless greed is very much in vogue at the moment

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you could provide convincing evidence sure, but I think that would be difficult given that we’re talking about the very fundamental definitions of the words choice and belief. We’re not really disagreeing on the facts, just the terminology. I think he terminology is important though, because if not accepting particular religious beliefs is defined as a choice, it can too easily become an expectation or requirement backed up with threats and punishments (as it commonly was in the past and still is in some places today).

Well I see it basically as accepting what evidence is presented, or not in my case. Beliefs should form from evidence.

I regard the past, and virtually everything that comes to us from the past (in the way of evidence from any particular time) as 'pieces of the puzzle', that is, that we can't really be sure as to the accuracy of any bit of information, especially that written by any human. The pieces make up a large jigsaw, many being missing, and some broken, and some perhaps not part of this puzzle. Hence, our understanding of the past is often very limited, especially when we get tracts of writing from either a biased source or an unreliable source or from a source with a very apparent agenda - like a religious belief. The further back we go then the more scarce the information and the more likelihood it comes from a biased source - survival of the fittest (or actually the most powerful usually) - such that it becomes more difficult to discern any real truth.

We have problems with reconstructing earlier life-forms but constructing earlier lives is equally problematic when only one side might survive. This is very apparent in records left for us, for example, where some people are simply erased from history by a subsequent person taking power who wanted to do so in order to take full control. We can see this often in religious conflicts, for example, where religious artefacts are often destroyed by an opposing ideology. So it is very difficult to discern what exactly was going on at certain times when a certain piece of writing was written.

So you can see where I have problems. What is written regarding any religious belief falls squarely into this problem area - I just cannot accept the truthfulness and impartiality of almost anything written so long ago - no matter where it comes from. I don't have a problem with many of the values espoused by any particular religion - just the veracity of the religion itself.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You could well be right. Benefit and harm are themselves largely subjective and so I can't say, "no, you're provably wrong to think that." There's certainly no doubt that religion has been a very real cause of suffering over the centuries.

Perhaps this is my misanthropy coming through but I do suspect that if religion never existed, humanity would probably have just found something else to excuse its atrocities. After all, sheer limitless greed is very much in vogue at the moment

Yes, I can't argue that religions haven't had a guiding and controlling influence - perhaps just too controlling.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

I must salute you, good sir. This paragraph <above> is one of the most concise descriptions I have read in a very long while, which neatly explains the conundrum we humans face, with respect to the "god" question.

I have elsewhere, asked theists this basic question many many times: please define your god, so that we may further examine it's characteristics to determine validity.

They seldom do, as a defined thing may be tested against the defining criteria, and as often as not, shown to be an impossible construct. Not unlike the traditional impossible thing: a square circle.

Whereas an undefined thing, I have pointed out frequently, really has no substance; nobody truly worships an undefined thing, even if they won't admit it.

But even if there were some who did, an undefined god has the delightful characteristic of having no commands the followers must impose onto other folk. So we can safely ignore such things with no real consequences.

As far as my research has discovered, nobody ever blew up a building, nor even punched someone in the snoot, on behalf of an undefined deity.

No-- such activities are always in the name of very clearly defined gods, usually from some ancient book or other.

And those? We can test for reliability. So far? All such tests are either ambiguous (no different from pure random chance), or the test conclusively shows said deity is unresponsive.

I've raised my cuppa coffee to your comment.

 

[Erebus]

Yes, I can't argue that religions haven't had a guiding and controlling influence - perhaps just too controlling.

No argument here!

 

[Quintessence]

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:

Nah, you missed more than a few. Perhaps this wasn't intentional, but your framing implies that the only dimension of religions that is relevant is "correctness" and "truth value." This is just a very strange way to approach the topic of religion when the functions and content of religions is hardly constrained by these two items (and in some cases, doesn't include these two items at all... at least not in the sense you probably mean).

I pick other - If you think that "correctness" and "truth value" is the point of religion you're doing it wrong.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Nah, you missed more than a few. Perhaps this wasn't intentional, but your framing implies that the only dimension of religions that is relevant is "correctness" and "truth value." This is just a very strange way to approach the topic of religion when the functions and content of religions is hardly constrained by these two items (and in some cases, doesn't include these two items at all... at least not in the sense you probably mean).

I pick other - If you think that "correctness" and "truth value" is the point of religion you're doing it wrong.

I don't doubt that I could have framed the question differently, but it was just a first topic to get eased in.