Why do people believe in God ?

[Gregrios]

Oh wow... Juan wins the thread.

....only because he's staying out of my path.

[Juan_Bottom]

Oh wow... Juan wins the thread.

....only because he's staying out of my path.

lol, wut?

[Simon Viavant]

lol... after learning about all the different religions (im not an expert) nearly all of them have the same main points but the way chosen to interpret is very different. Can it be that there is only one God and we all believe in the same good? Can it also be that more than 2000 years ago people were able to communicate over vast oceans and still tell the same tale and truths? now this is really simple because other wise it would go on for pages!

Furthermore, i have even read books were the author portrays GOD as an alien being (modernized much like ourselves today). The Aztecs built temples reaching into the sky to be closer to their GOD, who resembled a person in a spacesuit (drawings on walls)...The book is really interesting and a damn good read

Now we're back on the topic of this thread. If you want my theory on why people are inclined to be religious, see my post on the first page. As to lots of cultures being that way: You'll notice religions are very similar in the same geographic and ethnic regions, and not much like those elsewhere. For example, middle eastern religions are all monotheistic with an all powerful, all knowing god. Religions in the U.S. and Canada region are more shamanistic with beliefs in animal spirits and such. Central American religions are polytheistic with many powerful gods who have defined looks and personality. Hinduism/Bhuddism/Shintoism are centered around Karma and reincarnation and such. To name a few. You say people who never interacted all had some idea of a god. But there were only similar religions in the same geographic and ethnic regions where people interacted, and outside were completely different religions. Also, there would've been an original religion with the first humans in Africa, and as people spread out around the world, they still had beliefs based on that, but the beliefs changed to produce different religions.

I find it amazing that so many religions share basic core values ... love (though not necessarily everyone!), respect for parents/elders, etc.

But the differances ... violence verses non violant solutions to conflicts, respect of living/dead versus actual worship of these, should we understand or simply conquer the world around us? Are probably even more amazing.

Some anthropologists suggest that human religions and rules are similar to physical adaptions we see in the "natural" world. Jewish leaders outlawed pork because raising pigs required human consumable food (unlike grazxers which turn inedible grass into edible milk and meat) and also increased diseases in the ancient world. Roman Catholic Priests required eating fish because fishermen needed more work ...etc. I am not saying it is true (sort of a "chicken and egg" question ... did people create the rule because it made sense or did God give us the rule because it was good for us?)

I don't really get your point there. Can you reiterate it a bit? Right now you just seem to by rambling on about what early cultures did without a point.

[Dancing Mustard]

Oh wow... Juan wins the thread.

....only because he's staying out of my path.

Yeah, getting drowned by bullshit would put the dampers on his inevitable ascension to Sainthood.

[PLAYER57832]

You seem to look upon adhering to a religion the same way you`d look at deciding never to eat rice again, as a personal choice that shouldn`t affect anyone else too much.
However as i said earlier, i think that many such beliefs (and other sentiments which i think are out of place nowadays, like the exaggerated nationalism a lot of people still have) have many consequences, the majority of which aren`t positive.
This doesn`t mean i think religion should disappear immediately, but i absolutely think we should all work towards removing the "sacred" status which leads to the offense you said some people feel when posed a serious religious question.

This is why the green woman argument is false. The real truth is that every religion is only equal in the philisophical sense, just like every idea is "possible" unless proven false in science.

We tend to say that every religion has "equal" rights, "equal" validity, at least in discussion because there is always a debate over exactly where to draw the line. There is most definitely a very, very, VERY large "grey" area of thought that is not going to be accepted, should not be accepted by the majority.

The line in religion is "does it actually HARM others". Even that, at times, gets challenged. For example, is a Jehovah's witness allowed to deny a life-saving blood transfusion for his child? In a society that prides itself on freedom of religion and thought, it is a definitely debate. At what point does a parent's rights to teach and decide for their minor children end? Still, most people would argue that Jehovah's Witnesses, (jokes aside) might be irritating at times, but are not truly harmful. Jim Jones, Charles Manson, on the other hand ... were/are.

In science, the line is currently best illustrated by the whole Creationist "debate". As long as the debate is "did God create the universe or not?", there is no issue. The problem comes when folks try to say that there is PROOF that the earth is only 6000 years old and that scientist are basically a bunch of liars who like to concoct all sorts of evidence and ignore reality. (and that, make no mistake, is exactly what Creation Scientists purport!)
However, because few people take the time to understand either Evolution OR to look into what Creation Science actually says, it is easy for folks to come in and say "hey, here is the truth". When it is given in church, people have less of a tendency to question. And yes, that IS harmful ... but it is also not what the Bible tells us to do, it is simply what human beings do.

As for that ... that people merely listen to their parents, pastors,e tc. .. You are absolutely correct. BUT, you ahve to go much further than religion. The truth is that few people question much of anything they are taught. Religion is just one realm. As long as you are willing to acknowledge that other folks many be correct, then you tend to act reasonably. Religion, politics, etc can all make people so intent on their own ideas and beliefs that they ignore the possibility that they could be wrong. In fact, that was why I took issue with much of what you said. To outright dismiss religion, simply because you don't happen to agree, is as bad as to embrace it unthinkingly and without acknowledging other's right to think as they do.

And ultimately, religion should become exactly like any other topic, open to criticism and even ridicule. After all, if someone claimed that red brings him good luck, therefore he has decided to vote for a party with a red emblem, because he is convinced they will be lucky, i would wager he would get his fair share of ridicule.

The differance is that the act of ridicule is itself against much religion. And you cannot just pick an arbitrary thought and call it "equal" to religion which is deeply seated, deeply held and based upon history, years of teaching and lore. You can say that people are just too full of themselves by this .. or you can show basic respect for others beliefs and let it be. I don't follow Mohammed, but I would never slander his name around a Moslem. Actually, I would not slander his name at all because there is simply no reason, nothing to be gained and it is offensive to others.

That is not to say that all religious people fall in that area. A lot of people have perfectly reasonable reasons for believing in whatever they believe, however the "my bible says gay is evil, so it is, but i refuse to also accept all the other shit" and such crowd should definitely get out from under the protective umbrella of "sacred" religious ideals, and be ridiculed.

Religion has no lock on stupidity. I grew up in Northern California. Believe me, people can be as intense about everything from recycling to art to ... you name it .. as they can about religion. Politics particularly springs to mind right now.

BUT, at the same time, this is also a criticism that is waged "from the outside". You cannot feel what I feel and don't understand what I see or think ... so it is easy to say that I think as I do simply because it is what I "was taught". The truth is far more complex... and that is true not just for religion.

Note: I am not talking about this on a personal level, i wouldn`t go to work tomorrow and laugh at anybodies belief, i`m just explaining the direction in which i think society itself should head

I know you aren't talking about this on a personal level... and that is part of my point. You consider yourself and "objective viewer" of religion, but the truth is that you are as biased as any deep follower. It just so happens that instead of being convinced religion is the "answer" you see it as the "enemy".

I cannot claim to be purely objective myself, but as a scientist, I do work very, very, very hard to overcome my personal biases when reviewing whether something is real or not, when trying to see something from someone else's perspective. I can't say I succeed, but at least I tend to be aware of my biases.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't really get your point there. Can you reiterate it a bit? Right now you just seem to by rambling on about what early cultures did without a point.

You are right, I apologize.

My first point is that most of the "big" religions share some basic values -- love of family, respect for oneself, truthfulness, etc. they vary in how they are defined (family might mean just your parents and siblings or include cousins or your whole community, truthfulness might only be necessary in certain situations, etc.) Given they are so universal, might there be some human core there?

The second thought was and idea I found interesting in College... the idea that religion provides answers to certain practicle problems. From the "outside" you can say that folks created the religion to help them deal with their world. From the "inside", of course, folks say (in one form or another) that God helps them learn to live the "correct" way.

For example, the Navaho traditionally burn all the possessions of the deceased. As it turns out, this is a very good way to keep Hanta virus from spreading. Similarly, not eating pork is both economically sensible in the arid mideast (Pork require more food per pound and require the same type of food we eat) AND because of diseases from pork (tricinosis, etc.). Or, in another context, wearing wool makes a lot of sense in European climates, but a loin cloth makes a lot of sense if you live in the tropics.

This is not 100% true. BUT, we are only just beginning to learn how many useful and quite sensible ideas were dismissed and eradicated by the "civilized" Europeans.

AND, I would suggest (though it is hardly my original idea lol!!) that lacking these rules is part of the problem discussed in the article. BUT, I don't just put this in the esoteric/spiritual realm. I speak of practicalities.

Anyone who has been through a REALLY tough time, knows that you end up just putting one foot in front of the other. Funerals, and so forth give us a pattern to follow when we are plain not capable of making real decisions. But, a funny thing happens. You go through the motions, the steps and, eventually, you end up finding your way "back". We often rail against the "big" questions in religion, but it is often the basic rituals that give us comfort and guidance.

This is why Kwanza was created, why gangs operate as they do .... etc.

[Gregrios]

Oh wow... Juan wins the thread.

....only because he's staying out of my path.

Yeah, getting drowned by bullshit would put the dampers on his inevitable ascension to Sainthood.

I knew you of all people would understand.

[jonesthecurl]

On the topic of religious rules making practical sense -
People often berate starving Hindus, and say "let them eat beef!"
Actuallly, the rule against eating the cows means there's something left to pull your plough after the famine's over.

[Frigidus]

I think that religions by themselves are just fine, even if they're completely insane. The problems arise in two situations. One is when religion mixes with politics. Things always seem to get bad when this happens. Whether its the religious trying to shape the world around them (the Crusades as an example) or the government trying to shape the religion (I suppose the Soviet Union is a slightly flawed example, but close enough to ring true) they go together like ice cream and mustard. The other, related, one is when the nutters decide that their religion not having a bigger impact on the world at large is a bad thing. That's pretty much the driving philosophy behind the current spit of terrorists in the Middle East. Oh no, consumerism doesn't line up well with Islam! KILL FUCKING EVERYONE! There are a few exceptions, but few enough that it wouldn't be a real issue.

[comic boy]

Player

You make a very good point about dietary laws being practical but im a little unsure of your conclusion, are you saying that these rules were inspired by God or simply making the point that religion can be beneficial in this respect. I would certainly agree with the second proposition, indeed my argument has long been that men evoked the name of God in order to lend weight to their ideas. My point is that it is irrelevent whether the 10 Commanments were the invention of God or not, what gave them creedance was that the people believed they were, rather than just an inspired creation of Moses.

[PLAYER57832]

Player

You make a very good point about dietary laws being practical but im a little unsure of your conclusion, are you saying that these rules were inspired by God or simply making the point that religion can be beneficial in this respect. I would certainly agree with the second proposition, indeed my argument has long been that men evoked the name of God in order to lend weight to their ideas. My point is that it is irrelevent whether the 10 Commanments were the invention of God or not, what gave them creedance was that the people believed they were, rather than just an inspired creation of Moses.

I did not specify whether they were actually inspired by God or not, because that is a matter of faith. An anthropologist would tend to say that the leaders became convinced this was the way to go and either attributed it to God or convinced themselves/honestly thought it came from God. Those in the religion would naturally attribute it to God.

I am Christian and of course believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I do differ from Jay and some others in what I think it says at times, but we agree that it is the word of God.

My overall point, though was as you said.. whether religion is "true" or not is sort of irrelevant. (to the article) If people believe them to be true, then people who go outside the rules feel troubled. "Returning" to the "rules" can offer solace ... even if we rail against what is said and taught.

However, I would, to a point, include a society, even those members who do not directly believe or purport to believe. Take the US and these discussions, for example. There are quite a few here who post objections to Christianity. Yet, when you read much of what they say it is quite evident that they were, in fact, brought up with Judeao-Christian values and hold the essentials as "true" even if they dismiss the idea of God and so forth.

That is, when talking to a westerner, the most common accusation against Christianity is more or less boiled down to "you hypocrites". However, if I talk to someone from an eastern culture or one who was truly raised in a native american culture (very rare!! .. most were "Christianized" and even if by force,they still hold the faith), they more often cite a "lack of understanding about the universe" and so forth.

Most folks think they are open minded, but in most cases .. it is self-delusion. I definitely don't exclude myself, but I will say that I work very hard to get around my biases as best I can. (and admitting it is impossible to do so fully is part of the battle right there!)

[comic boy]

Good Post !
Those Judeao - Christian virtues form the basis of our moral outlook and we would be much the poorer without them thats for sure.

[CrazyAnglican]

Good to see somebody actually discussing the article
CA may I directly ask you the pertinent question of how you came to believe in God, were you raised in a religious environment or did you find faith later in life ? If the later then were you at the time feeling stressed or empty, did you find religion comforting - no tricks here , simply interested in the process. Lastly how do you explain the fact that such large percentage of US citizens claim to believe in God compared with other developed nations, lets assume for this exercise that its not because they are the chosen people Do you see it as self perpetuating ,given that the majority of children will have been raised with some degree of religion, or more a result of social pressure/the desire to fit in. . I think it is a combination of these things but also a reflection of American society which thrives on quick fix solutions, religion offers to answer an awful lot of questions in one simple package.

Sorry to take so long getting back to you.

Personally I was raised in a Christian houshold. Of three sons one of us doesn't go to church or talk much about religion; I'm a Christian; and one of us is a Christian monk. I went through a period (from about sixteen to twenty-three or so) in which I didn't attend church at all. In that time I spoke with many folks from many different religious backgrounds including atheists, Shintoists, Bhuddists, Mormons, neo-Pagans, Shia Muslims, and Jainists.

While I found something to respect in each of these the only choice seemed to be between believeing on something or not. Atheism in and of itself offered nothing that I could see. Sure, relax and enjoy life, but the Christians that I knew were doing just that and the atheists I knew seemed to have an edge of intolerance that rubbed me the wrong way. Once I had ruled atheism out as a negative stance it came down to what religion. My basic feeling was that if God didn't love diversity, things would be a lot more more uniform. So with that in mind it seemed a lot more logical to walk the path that I was brought up in (given that I knew it better than the others) than to start from scratch in one that was probably no better loved by God than Christianity.

In essence I don't think it matters as much what you believe; as why you believe (I'm skeptical of power seeking-intolerance-and of actions that seem to be a perversion of a faith / suicide bombing, abortion clinic bombing, etc. ); how well you follow your beliefs; and what kind of person you aspire to become as a result of those beliefs.

In response to why people believe? There are probably more reasons than there are believers. To intimate that its due to reasons that would be reflect positively or negatively on religion or religious adherents is really no more than speculation, in my opinion.

[comic boy]

Thanks CA for an honest and informative answer.

[CrazyAnglican]

THis seemed more apppropriate for this thread than the political one that it was in.

So Christians are nutjobs?

I'll say it. Anyone rational adult who believes in magic & fairy tales is a nutjob.

Its not magic and fairy tales

Yes it is.

The whole point of the Bible (/Christianity) is that it's a collection of stories about magical god-zombies and all-seeing sky fairies. That's what it is.

If you don't feel confident enough in your beliefs to hear them described as such, then bad luck. But to deny Backglass' statement is to declare false the very fundamentals of your faith.

Certainly Backglass can call us nutjobs all he likes. Given that the term is too vague to be of any real use all it means to me is that I believe something that he won't even consider, and that he'd rather belittle me than attempt it. That said I don't think Jap is denying the fundamentals of his religion at all Skittles!.

1) He's making a good point that imo he gave up on too soon. A zombie is a slave. It's a reanimated corpse that is totally under the control of the person who raised it. To use your broad definition is to call anyone who has had a near death experience a zombie because they "came back from the dead". Zombie is a term that connotes superstition, so some folks would like it to apply to Jesus Christ. There is no evidence that the term applies at all though. He came back to life, sure, but to be ressurected is to come fully back to life (as someone who has a near death experience come back to life with no stigma of being a "zombie"). Zombies, if they exist at all, are not ressurected but reanimated (that is they are not fully alive and have no will of their own).

2) To term miracles "magic" is to presume that magic (whatever it is) is how God brings about all events that we cannot explain. Once again, it's a derisive term inappropriately applied. For instance, I witnessed a miracle a few days ago (by way of a video). A pilot at an airshow lost his right wing in the middle of a vertical climb. He should be dead, but through some unreal flying he kept it from going into a flat spin; cocked the plane at such an angle that the fuselage gave him lift without having the remaining wing push him into a roll. He ended up slamming the plane down flat (rightside up one the landing gear) onto the airstrip and walking away. It was miraculous by any stretch of the imagination, but not "magic" in any sense. The pilot flew with tremendous skill and deserves credit for doing so. Could he do it again....I don't know. Would he want to.....probably not.

[Neoteny]

If by miraculous, you mean improbable, then you might be right. But I think you are walking a very precarious path by calling it such.

[CrazyAnglican]

If you mean by saying that it's not "magical" then it isn't evidence of divine intervention then you might be right. However you aren't taking into account timing.

[Japs]

Hmm.... Well if I wana walk my narrow bath so be it but its still the right path.

[Neoteny]

If you mean by saying that it's not "magical" then it isn't evidence of divine intervention then you might be right. However you aren't taking into account timing.

I'm not sure what timing has to do with it.

Hmm.... Well if I wana walk my narrow bath so be it but its still the right path.

Well asserted.

[PLAYER57832]

The whole point of the Bible (/Christianity) is that it's a collection of stories about magical god-zombies and all-seeing sky fairies. That's what it is.

No. You may believe what you like, but when you start telling others that they must believe as you, ... you leave reason and head toward fanatacism. Not to mention plain old fashioned disrespect.

[Japs]

Were not telling them they must believe it.

[PLAYER57832]

For instance, I witnessed a miracle a few days ago (by way of a video).

I'd say that you could even see that video is a miracle .. on many levels.

[Japs]

Its not a miracle. It the taking of light and putting it on a disk. Now Raising dead, water to wine? those are miracles.

[CrazyAnglican]

Look at it like this. The conundrum of the Red Sea.

Scenario 1: God magically causes that Red Sea (a massive body of water) to split in Cecil B. Demill's fashion before the fleeing Hebrews. It all looks as if it's straight out the movies and nobody has ever seen anything remotely like it. Did it happen like that? I'd agree probably not, but I don't know any more than you do. If God wanted it to happen in that fashion then, sure, he could if he wanted.

Scenario 2: God allows the Hebrews to flee across the reed sea or Sea of Reeds which is not a massive body of water at all. It's a real place that can be verified. All of the plagues of Egypt can be tied to volcanic activity in Sicily at the time. Even the Pillar of cloud (smoke) by day and the pillar of fire (light from the volcano) by night. No, I'm not sure how it worked out that they were moving from Egypt toward Scicilt and not Canaan, but it did take them 40 years so we can give them lee way for taking the scenic route. The last of the verifiable catastrophe's that happened was that the waters receeded for the hebrews and came smashing back over the pursuing Egyptian army. What phenomenon causes water to receed for hours before it happens and then come crashing back catastrophically? A tsunami right. The problem here is (as I think you were alluding to), it's all explained away. No "magic", no miracle, no God. Right?

The problem with Scenario 2: One thing isn't explained away; one guy actually. Moses. He was at the head of it all. Telling people what was going ot happen beforehand. Even if he wasn't saying what was happening beforehand that's some serious stroke of luck. Eleven extremely rare events come together in precisely the right order; at precisely the right time (even down to the second); to allow one prophet to do precisely what he said God wanted him do to. That's a miracle. Nobody was waving a wand. Nothing occult. Nobody said they had an inordinant or even improbable control over anything. God said "do this" and made it possible within the bounds of physics.

[PLAYER57832]

The problem with Scenario 2: One thing isn't explained away; one guy actually. Moses. He was at the head of it all. Telling people what was going ot happen beforehand. Even if he wasn't saying what was happening beforehand that's some serious stroke of luck. Eleven extremely rare events come together in precisely the right order; at precisely the right time (even down to the second); to allow one prophet to do precisely what he said God wanted him do to. That's a miracle. Nobody was waving a wand. Nothing occult. Nobody said they had an inordinant or even improbable control over anything. God said "do this" and made it possible within the bounds of physics.

Gotta disagree with you in part, here.

First, a lot more things are predictable to people who are truly observant than we westerners tend to think. Example... did you know that few or none of the boat people died in that last big typhoon that killed so many?(cannot remember their tribal name, but they have lived on boats for generations in that area) They knew the signs.

BUT, also, according the Chaim Potok, among others, it would not necessarily have to have been those 9 rare events. The Sea of reeds is apparently fairly shallow, particularly during certain predictable tidal events. Further, the Jews would have been on foot, while the Eqyptians were in Chariots with horses. It is quite possible for people to walk where chariots would sink.

But, I fully agree with your basic premise. WE, today like ot draw nice, neat distinctions between science and miracles that ancient people might not have. THAT might be the biggest reason why miracles "don't occur" today.

AND, sort of like the "chicken and egg" -- Did God tell us to do this because it is good for us, or do we say God tells us because on some level our teachers know it is good for us? ... it is a question without a real answer. It is a matter of belief.