Why Do You Believe?

[HaveANiceLife]

Personally I'm secular. I don't believe in any god I only believe in what I can see has adequate evidence to back it up. My question to the Theist people of this board is: Why in the face of overwhelming evidence against your belief do you choose to believe? I don't mean this in any insulting or derogatory manner, and I apologize if you feel that way. I'm just honestly curious why you choose to believe.

[Why]

I believe, because, despite what your post claims, there is not overwhelming evidence against my belief. You seem to claim to have evidence that God definitely does not exist. What is that evidence?

[°Leprechaun]

I believe, because, despite what your post claims, there is not overwhelming evidence against my belief. You seem to claim to have evidence that God definitely does not exist. What is that evidence?

I don't think that it can be proven either way and for me that is a reason not to believe.
There are many hypotheses that can't be proven. Why should I believe in any of them?
There seem to be two schools of thought about theism, that a deity's existence can be proven, and if that were true it would be a reason to believe, I suppose. The other is faith, a tenuous concept to say the least.
If a deity exists what purpose would such a belief have? You can be just as good being a non-believer as you can as a believer.
There are plenty of reasons not to believe, such as the problem of evil, a problem with no adequate solution in my opinion.

[Why]

Well it is certainly impossible to prove there is no god.

Faith is the bridge between evidence and seeing.

[DavidB.]

My question to the Theist people of this board is: Why in the face of overwhelming evidence against your belief do you choose to believe?

That's quite a lot of assumptions. I don't see any particular "overwhelming evidence" against my beliefs, nor do I "choose" to believe. I choose to keep certain commandments, but I don't choose to believe. If I didn't want to believe, I probably still woud.

[°Leprechaun]

There is also the problem of people of different religions who think that only they have the correct one. It doesn't make religion look good.

[DavidB.]

There is also the problem of people of different religions who think that only they have the correct one. It doesn't make religion look good.

But that's not relevant to the perspective of someone who beliefs. The fact that many are wrong doesn't mean that I cannot be right. This "pluralist" criticism of religion is solely relevant for non-religious people.

[°Leprechaun]

There is also the problem of people of different religions who think that only they have the correct one. It doesn't make religion look good.

But that's not relevant to the perspective of someone who beliefs. The fact that many are wrong doesn't mean that I cannot be right. This "pluralist" criticism of religion solely stems from a secular perspective.

The question is, how do you know your religion is correct and others are wrong? I disagree that it is soley a secular question. A believer can ask himself and herself the same question, if he or she so choses, and often does if he or she really thinks about it.

[°Leprechaun]

Also not all secular people are pluralists; I think that that goes without saying, since some atheists do criticize religion.

[DavidB.]

Also not all secular people are pluralists; I think that that goes without saying, since some atheists do criticize religion.

Oh, of course. My point was only that this particular pluralist critique of religion is only relevant to (some) non-religious people, but won't convince religious people.

[Del Tachi]

I believe, because, despite what your post claims, there is not overwhelming evidence against my belief. You seem to claim to have evidence that God definitely does not exist. What is that evidence?

I don't think that it can be proven either way and for me that is a reason not to believe.
There are many hypotheses that can't be proven. Why should I believe in any of them?
There seem to be two schools of thought about theism, that a deity's existence can be proven, and if that were true it would be a reason to believe, I suppose. The other is faith, a tenuous concept to say the least.
If a deity exists what purpose would such a belief have? You can be just as good being a non-believer as you can as a believer.
There are plenty of reasons not to believe, such as the problem of evil, a problem with no adequate solution in my opinion.

Fundamental misunderstanding of Christian philosophy.

All humans exist in a state of deprivation and separation from God because sin is universal.  We all lie, cheat, steal, etc.  The center of Christianity revolves around the idea of reconciliation and forgiveness, not moral virtue.    

[°Leprechaun]

Also not all secular people are pluralists; I think that that goes without saying, since some atheists do criticize religion.

Oh, of course. My point was only that this particular pluralist critique of religion is only relevant to (some) non-religious people, but won't convince religious people.

Yes, I agree.

[°Leprechaun]

I believe, because, despite what your post claims, there is not overwhelming evidence against my belief. You seem to claim to have evidence that God definitely does not exist. What is that evidence?

I don't think that it can be proven either way and for me that is a reason not to believe.
There are many hypotheses that can't be proven. Why should I believe in any of them?
There seem to be two schools of thought about theism, that a deity's existence can be proven, and if that were true it would be a reason to believe, I suppose. The other is faith, a tenuous concept to say the least.
If a deity exists what purpose would such a belief have? You can be just as good being a non-believer as you can as a believer.
There are plenty of reasons not to believe, such as the problem of evil, a problem with no adequate solution in my opinion.

Fundamental misunderstanding of Christian philosophy.

All humans exist in a state of deprivation and separation from God because sin is universal.  We all lie, cheat, steal, etc.  The center of Christianity revolves around the idea of reconciliation and forgiveness, not moral virtue.    

I wasn't trying to explain Christianity. My point, was, for me, belief in a deity would not benefit me, obviously Christians can disagree with that statement. I am not opposed to religion, per se, except in so far as the definition of religion includes a belief in God (or goddess).

[°Leprechaun]

I am not rejecting "God", but a need to believe in "God".

[DavidB.]

Obviously "believing" is a concept that's more of a "condicio sine qua non" for Christianity than for Judaism.

[sparkey]

I believe, because, despite what your post claims, there is not overwhelming evidence against my belief. You seem to claim to have evidence that God definitely does not exist. What is that evidence?

Would you accept any of this as evidence?:

• Supposedly historical stories in several religions contradicted by modern science (Egyptologists seeing no evidence of Exodus where it should be; geologists seeing no evidence of a global flood where it should be; biologists seeing evolution when they should be seeing creation; etc.)
• Archaeological evidence of the development of religions from others, for example, ancient Judaism being pretty clearly an offshoot of Canaanite polytheism rather than the other way around like the Bible says
• Comparative religion and sociological studies showing religious stories developing from cultures with irreconcilable contradictions, quite unlike a world where a religious truth exists beyond culture
• Evolutionary psychology's paradigm of humans as storytelling creatures, and since contradictory gods are based around different stories depending on the culture, this is evidence that gods are more likely to be products of this storytelling tendency than humans are to be products of a god
• Every "God of the gaps" argument made historically has failed up until now

[Why]

I believe, because, despite what your post claims, there is not overwhelming evidence against my belief. You seem to claim to have evidence that God definitely does not exist. What is that evidence?

Would you accept any of this as evidence?:

• Supposedly historical stories in several religions contradicted by modern science (Egyptologists seeing no evidence of Exodus where it should be; geologists seeing no evidence of a global flood where it should be; biologists seeing evolution when they should be seeing creation; etc.)
• Archaeological evidence of the development of religions from others, for example, ancient Judaism being pretty clearly an offshoot of Canaanite polytheism rather than the other way around like the Bible says
• Comparative religion and sociological studies showing religious stories developing from cultures with irreconcilable contradictions, quite unlike a world where a religious truth exists beyond culture
• Evolutionary psychology's paradigm of humans as storytelling creatures, and since contradictory gods are based around different stories depending on the culture, this is evidence that gods are more likely to be products of this storytelling tendency than humans are to be products of a god
• Every "God of the gaps" argument made historically has failed up until now

They could be used as part of an argument about the unlikelihood of the existence of a god or specific gods.
You might have written the second one a bit clumsily but as it is written it in my view misrepresents what the Bible says.
The fourth point is interesting, but when you use to say it is "more likely" then it is hardly overwhelming evidence.
People are quite capable of believing in a god and a diversity of life formed by the processes of evolution, so evolution is not an argument against the existence of a god in and of itself.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

To not believe is that life is only biological and cosmos. And it tradgically ends one day.

But, what's nxt? Is a question we all want answered and fortunately for living it is religion & theology.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I chose to believe before I even saw my first instance of the natural order being suspended by an inexplicable event (and I've seen many). Faith and science were never meant to be enemies but two sides of the same coin. Science does prove the existence of Divine Providence in many ways. Many of the greatest scientists were also men of great Christian faith.

[muon2]

I don't think that it can be proven either way and for me that is a reason not to believe.
There are many hypotheses that can't be proven. Why should I believe in any of them?

Our system of rational mathematical and scientific thought is based on hypotheses that can't be proven.

For example in classical geometry the statement "Given a line and a point not on the line, at most one line can be drawn through the point that is parallel to the given line." cannot be proved or disproved without introducing some other hypothesis that itself cannot be proved. The statement is called the parallel postulate (Playfair's version) and must be accepted as true to derive other aspects of geometry and mathematics.

In physics centuries were spent trying to measure the medium that carried light waves with no success. Einstein hypothesized that the speed of light was the same to all observers in straight line motion. This unproved postulate led to the development of Einstein's relativity and did away with the notion of a medium for light waves. Subsequent measurements of the effects of relativity didn't prove the postulate, but justified scientific belief in the unproven hypothesis.

In fact in the early 20th century Gödel proved that given any system of axioms there must be true statements about the natural numbers that are unprovable in the system. Essentially he delivered a logical proof that there there will always be unprovable hypotheses that are nonetheless true. Thus one must be prepared to believe in some unprovable hypotheses or choose to disbelieve statements that are true.

[anvi]

I think I'm kind of an empiricist but also a fallibilist.  I tend to operate on the basis of assumptions that have been either confirmed through my experience or that I've given lots of study to.  But there is never any guarantee that these assumptions won't be disproven by present and future experiences or evidence, and when they are, I have to change my convictions and adjust accordingly.  When you give up on the illusion of certainty, the world and life become much more interesting.

[Green Line]

I don't believe that something can be created from nothing.  I believe there must be some greater being than I.  Whether or not that is the God I believe in is impossible to say.  It gives me comfort to believe in God and makes me at ease with whatever happens to me in the end.  Thats basically it.

[Blue3]

Personally I'm secular. I don't believe in any god I only believe in what I can see has adequate evidence to back it up. My question to the Theist people of this board is: Why in the face of overwhelming evidence against your belief do you choose to believe? I don't mean this in any insulting or derogatory manner, and I apologize if you feel that way. I'm just honestly curious why you choose to believe.

You can be "secular" and religious.

Secular just means you support separation of church and state.

[Alcon]

I don't believe that something can be created from nothing.  I believe there must be some greater being than I.  Whether or not that is the God I believe in is impossible to say.  It gives me comfort to believe in God and makes me at ease with whatever happens to me in the end.  Thats basically it.

Doesn't it strike you as a little contradictory to claim that "something can't be created from nothing, because that's not consistent with how the world seems to work" and then claim that God was something created from nothing?

Well it is certainly impossible to prove there is no god.

Few atheists would outright endorse the claim "it is certain there is no god"; most religious people, by most accounts I've seen, endorse the claim "it is certain there is a god."  Most atheists would instead endorse the claim "it is not reasonable to be certain there is a god."  In any case, "you can't prove this isn't true" isn't a particularly coherent reason to affirmatively believe something.

Our system of rational mathematical and scientific thought is based on hypotheses that can't be proven.

For example in classical geometry the statement "Given a line and a point not on the line, at most one line can be drawn through the point that is parallel to the given line." cannot be proved or disproved without introducing some other hypothesis that itself cannot be proved. The statement is called the parallel postulate (Playfair's version) and must be accepted as true to derive other aspects of geometry and mathematics.

In physics centuries were spent trying to measure the medium that carried light waves with no success. Einstein hypothesized that the speed of light was the same to all observers in straight line motion. This unproved postulate led to the development of Einstein's relativity and did away with the notion of a medium for light waves. Subsequent measurements of the effects of relativity didn't prove the postulate, but justified scientific belief in the unproven hypothesis.

In fact in the early 20th century Gödel proved that given any system of axioms there must be true statements about the natural numbers that are unprovable in the system. Essentially he delivered a logical proof that there there will always be unprovable hypotheses that are nonetheless true. Thus one must be prepared to believe in some unprovable hypotheses or choose to disbelieve statements that are true.

Yes, but in every one of those cases, there's some extrinsic reason those hypotheses are accepted above other consistent hypotheses.  The fact we accept some unfalsifiable hypotheses does not mean that all unfalsifiable hypotheses are equally valid or reasonable.  Certainly you're not trying to argue that all hypotheses are equally reasonable, so if not that, what?  (I feel like this is bordering on the same exchange we had in the vegan thread, and you never resolved my questions about how far, and to what purpose, you were drawing the bounds of your apparent shrugging subjectivism.)

[Crumpets]

I believe in a "God" of sorts, in that I believe some mechanism of creation is a logical necessity if one assumes a universe of finite age and size. I don't see any issue with describing whatever mechanism caused the universe to expand from a singularity as "God," even if it doesn't meet every culture's definition of the term, as it meets the most widespread characteristic. I have never believed that there's some bearded man in the sky, and basically all of my beliefs are otherwise in line with atheism. So if the beliefs I've stated don't jive with your definition of a "believer," than I guess I'm an atheist, but I don't consider myself to be one.