Why do people believe in God?

[Revelation In Space]

axocanth For much of mankind's history we were under religious rule. That gave way to political rule and finally corporate rule. When I first started my Bible study in the mid 1990s I couldn't understand the Book of Revelation, but in the last 15 years it has become more and more clear. I can now see how the events foretold there could and have come to pass. Back then my approach to the Biblical was ideological so I wanted to fight against all of the evil as I saw it which was about to unfold. Then as it became more and more clear I realized how silly and pointless that was. Trying to make right what God saw fit to forewarn us about as if he had done so for us to change it rather than be prepared for it by doing the exact opposite.

Just stand aside and let it come to pass. It's bittersweet, yes, but there isn't anything you can do about it and you shouldn't want to because once the bitterness has subsided the sweet will be all that remains.

And now, having said that, I'm retiring from the Bible and religion arena.

 

[axocanth]

And now, having said that, I'm retiring from the Bible and religion arena.

I hope you're not leaving. You're one of the more interesting people I've met on this site, and that rarest of beasts: an autonomous thinker!

You know, I'm wondering whether the reasons "Who Do People Believe in God?", by and large (note!), are not at all unlike the reasons "Why Do People Believe Scientific Theories?".

Our resident Red Guards will mutter the same vacuous inanities about evidence, of course, -- in other words they claim epistemic reasons -- but as we've seen, they have little or no understanding of what that even means.

I suspect social and psychological reasons are far more dominant: peer pressure, herd mentality, and so on -- people might laugh if you express the slightest skepticism about "The Theory of Evolution" (whatever that is this week), for example.

Then there are those people who seem naturally more inclined to believe, whether it be scientific theories, God, or whatever -- the vast majority, I daresay -- and a minority like myself (fooked up childhood or something lol) more naturally disposed to skepticism or agnosticism. The state of "not belonging" to some belief system or other seems very uncomfortable to most people.

I hope that doesn't doesn't sound self-congratulatory; it's not meant to be. I'm (tentatively!) suggesting, rather, that a more pessimistic mindset militates against allegiance to any overarching belief system.

I dunno, just thinking aloud. Any thoughts yourself?

 

[axocanth]

Cf.

00:42: "Charlie, it's all shit."

Those who have seen the wonderful "Scent of a Woman" will already know that Colonel Slade (Al Pacino) is in a very negative state of mind. Thus, he's strongly disinclined to believe.

Now, whether it's God or the general theory of relativity, rationality will take you only so far. Rationality may provide some reasons for belief, but it cannot compel belief. The truth of neither can be proven; a leap of faith still required.

And perhaps we're more willing to make that leap after a date with a hot chick, say.

Hoo-ah!

What do you think?

 

[Pinball1970]

I know that, Pin. Pathogen, virus, submicroscopic infectious agent, germ.



The question was intended to establish how, specifically, the term from a biological perspective differs than from the common use. I wanted to see if, like one scientist I seen in a discussion, insisted that you couldn't isolate a virus. That it had never been done. Because he didn't understand the difference in the application of the term. Obviously, you wouldn't make that mistake. Since you know that isolating the virus from its host doesn't mean isolating in the generic or common sense. It wouldn't survive without a host.

This is probably better in the "pinball is a jerk thread" but ill answer this. All scientific terms are bastardized and are muddy. Sugar, you put sugar in your coffee? What do you mean by that? Glucose? Usually you mean Sucrose. I drink alcohol but not methanol or ethan-1,2 diol because that would probably kill me. When I say alcohol I mean ethanol, 5% if its beer.
Same too with Bacteria, Bacteria is plural (I hear "a Bacteria" not " a bacterium" in the media) some are pathogenic so not, some become pathogenic if they go where they should not, opportunistic pathogens like Staph or when the immune system is compromised.

Culturing viruses and other intracellular parasites require cells as the name suggests. Why would you think scientists are not able to isolate viruses? That is how they map the genomes.

 

[Pinball1970]

Book of Revelation, but in the last 15 years it has become more and more clear. I can now see how the events foretold there could and have come to pass

No. That is not what the book of Revelation is. As per the prophets these guys were social commentators not seers with crystal balls. They were writers speaking about events in the own lands and their own time and that includes John. The book is called the "apocalypse of John" which means "revealing," and he used apocalyptic imagery.
Daniel was the first to illustrate this sort of thinking and writing and Jesus was himself an apocalyptic thinker.
In short the Jews of that time thought that there must be evil in the world as even though they were following the law bad stuff was still happening to them, therefore it was the devil and his demons at work. The devil would be destroyed and all in league with him and god would then come in power and establish his kingdom and the righteous would be vindicated and rewarded, those against god would be destroyed. Specifically the Roman empire. Jesus thought this was just around the corner.

“The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

in his lifetime.

"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"

 

[Pinball1970]

Here is the impression I get of you

Start a thread? "Pinball, the man behind the mask."

You look to people who can supply you with confirmation of the answers that are already irrelevant to where you want to be.

Mostly I want to discuss the science subjects I am interested in.

Your approach isn't intellectual or academic

It is with the posters who are intellectual and academic.

This is a science forum, and you like discussing science. That much makes sense.

Agree, cool.

There isn't any real point in arguing with me about that.

I did not realize that I was. Few Biblical scholars (besides the fundamentalists) think those OT stories are based on facts, All the evidence points to earlier rehashed myths. adjusted and adapted then readapted to fit in with the culture of that time.

Modern geology disproves young earth and global flood. Modern physics disproves about the creation, 19th century Biology disproves created "kinds" and 20th century archaeology disproves the Exodus story.

Is it still possible to be a theist? Yes! I was, those things did not destroy my faith they took away Biblical literalism as an option.

 

[axocanth]

Modern geology disproves young earth and global flood. Modern physics disproves about the creation, 19th century Biology disproves created "kinds" and 20th century archaeology disproves the Exodus story.

Funny, I keep hearing, both here and elsewhere, that all that Creationist crap is unscientific on the grounds that it is unfalsifiable. Pinball now assures us that it has been disproven, in other words, falsified. How this feat of logical magic was achieved is left as an exercise to the reader.

Funny also, I keep hearing that science adheres strictly to a principle of methodological naturalism. That is, science does not or cannot make any appraisal of supernatural claims. I noticed other members comment on science's commitment to methodological naturalism as I was scanning the earlier pages of this thread last night. Both James and Exchemist advert to it, if I remember right.

On all such matters, then, science is -- of necessity -- completely silent.

If Pinball is to be trusted, however, the very last thing science has been on these Creationist matters is silent.

Science, then, has not only falsified that which is supposed to be unfalsifiable, but also made methodological intrusions into places where their methodology is supposed to preclude them from going.


You really can't have a finger in two inconsistent pies like this, guys.

 

[axocanth]

Continuing from above . . .


Once again this is all supremely ironic. Let me explain.

Received wisdom -- the kind of thing you'll hear from the Ministry of Scientistic Propaganda (MSP) -- goes something like the following:

Scientific theories are falsifiable. Theories typically contain unobservable posits which, needless to say, cannot be directly observed. These theories can nonetheless be tested. Predictions can be derived from a theory: if the predictions are borne out, we say the theory has been confirmed (but not proven); if the predictions are not borne out, we say the theory has been falsified.


In real world terms, general relativity, say, posits various unobservable entities such as a 4-d spacetime manifold. We cannot test the theory by directly observing this manifold. But if the theory yields predictions which can be tested -- e.g. distant galaxies behaving a certain way -- and these predictions turn out to be false, we conclude that the theory itself is false. That's the story anyway.

Of course, they don't call it the Ministry of Scientistic Propaganda for nothing. It's the stuff of fairy tales. There exists no example in the entire history of science, to my knowledge, when a major theory was en masse declared falsified by the entire community of scientists due to its predictions not being borne out. Distant galaxies were indeed discovered to be behaving in a way at odds with the predictions of general relativity. No collective declaration of falsification was made, and GR remains alive and well. Dark matter entered the picture instead.



Now, lip service to methodological naturalism notwithstanding, precisely the same methodology as above can be applied to the God-did-it theory, supernatural or not. God, like spacetime, is an unobservable posit of the theory. If, however, predictions can be derived from the theory, then the theory can be tested - precisely what Pinball does above.

If, for example, it can be derived from Creationist theory that the Earth is 6000 years old, and this prediction is not borne out, we can apply the MSP criteria and declare that the God-did-it theory itself is false -- exactly as Pinball does above.


And what's ironic about all this?

The Ministry of Propaganda applies a standard to Creationist theory which they never apply to their own.

 

[Revelation In Space]

I hope you're not leaving. You're one of the more interesting people I've met on this site, and that rarest of beasts: an autonomous thinker!

I've been doing this on forums since 1995, nearly 30 years. Nearly as long as Jesus' lifetime. Really, I was just dropping by. I first joined this forum in 2014 and quickly realized it wasn't for me. This is a science forum with a religion subforum. Certainly nothing wrong with that, but there isn't a great deal of interest in the stuff I'm interested in discussing. I only returned because I got some sort of news email and couldn't even remember joining. You and Pinball1970 's interest are anomalies; the others are drive by. I'm going to post a few more things, on the Bible and then on plandemics and then I'm done, not just here but everywhere. You'll notice I've taken down my site.

You know, I'm wondering whether the reasons "Who Do People Believe in God?", by and large (note!), are not at all unlike the reasons "Why Do People Believe Scientific Theories?".

Our resident Red Guards will mutter the same vacuous inanities about evidence, of course, -- in other words they claim epistemic reasons -- but as we've seen, they have little or no understanding of what that even means.

I suspect social and psychological reasons are far more dominant: peer pressure, herd mentality, and so on -- people might laugh if you express the slightest skepticism about "The Theory of Evolution" (whatever that is this week), for example.

Then there are those people who seem naturally more inclined to believe, whether it be scientific theories, God, or whatever -- the vast majority, I daresay -- and a minority like myself (fooked up childhood or something lol) more naturally disposed to skepticism or agnosticism. The state of "not belonging" to some belief system or other seems very uncomfortable to most people.

I hope that doesn't doesn't sound self-congratulatory; it's not meant to be. I'm (tentatively!) suggesting, rather, that a more pessimistic mindset militates against allegiance to any overarching belief system.

I dunno, just thinking aloud. Any thoughts yourself?

After my relatively brief study with the JW's my mom became a JW when I invited her to a meeting with me and she began her own study. So, I worked with JWs and knew them fairly well even after I stopped studying with them. They told a story of an encounter with a local hell-fire preacher. The JWs know that the hell doctrine is a pagan doctrine adopted by much later apostate Christians. It isn't taught in the Bible. When they informed this local preacher of this they were surprised at his response. "Oh, yes, I know." They asked him if he taught it anyway to frighten his adherents into attending, which is what they assumed he did it for. He laughed and said: "No. I teach it anyway because if I didn't I would be out of a job." Christians want to believe in hell not because it is true but because it makes them feel superior. Anyone who disagrees with their God will burn forever in hell.

I think people believe what they want to believe even though they say they have no choice. Many people who believe in God do believe in a god, but not the one they profess to believe in. Deus ex machina. God from the machine. Or God of one's own making. An interesting quote I came across, I'm not sure who said it: You know you've created your own god when it turns out that it hates all the same people you hate. Marilyn Manson, who is often thought of as anti-Christian has a song in which the lyrics say: "I never said I hated the one true God but the God of the people I hated." Satan, the Bible says, is the God of this world.

But you see, that is sort of the amazing beauty of true faith in God. God wants salvation of people who want his kingdom to come once the world has been destroyed. The word Israel means to grapple, wrestle or contend with God for preservation. Jacob, for example, became Israel after wrestling with the angel of God. That's what we do. We wrestle with God for our salvation. Though the eventuality is unfortunate, we want the world to be destroyed so that God's kingdom and purpose for man will be restored.

If a very rich man is looking for a wife who loves him for what he is rather than his money he won't settle for one that wants him for his money. Many think they love God but they love salvation.

I'm homosexual. Before I first became a believer, I was a morally upright person for the most part. After becoming a believer, I went through a very dark period. In fact, I call it my "Dark Days." I didn't think that I could change my behavior so I had to make a choice. I chose the homosexual lifestyle over God and went down a dark alley of promiscuousness, drugs and alcohol. I was honest and straight forward about that. I didn't live under the illusion that I could do both. But eventually, like the prodigal son, I realized my error. I had plenty of faith in God, but had none in myself.

By the way, you're wrong about science changing being a bad thing. Science is knowledge, knowledge in science and theology evolves as we learn. If it doesn't it becomes stagnant ideology. I'm often wrong unapologetically for that reason, thus I learn. I love truth above all other things. God is the ultimate truth. If I learned that God was a lie I would be done with God.

 

[Revelation In Space]

Start a thread? "Pinball, the man behind the mask."

I don't think you hide behind a mask. It was an anecdotal observation based upon experience.

It is with the posters who are intellectual and academic.

I don't think so. Not even if they agree. Your responses are halfhearted impatient quips, not intellectual or academically motivated. I could be wrong; I haven't had much experience with you personally. People like Gawdzilla Sama are easier for me to deal with because I know it's just a joke to them. They are only tormenting me. I know this because I used to do the same to them, in fact I still enjoy that antagonistic back and forth. Your presentation has the pretense of an intellectual conclusion when really your approach is merely confirmation bias. Not scientific.

I did not realize that I was. Few Biblical scholars (besides the fundamentalists) think those OT stories are based on facts, All the evidence points to earlier rehashed myths. adjusted and adapted then readapted to fit in with the culture of that time.

No, all of the so-called Biblical scholars you carefully select do. Higer criticism, the documentary theory is a laughable contrast to real Biblical scholars, and I'm no admirer of those either since they teach tradition of apostacy over the scriptural.

Modern geology disproves young earth and global flood. Modern physics disproves about the creation, 19th century Biology disproves created "kinds" and 20th century archaeology disproves the Exodus story.

You see how such vague and ambiguous statements are problematic for me and not at all intellectual or academic? I can either respond to it by contradicting it with my own vague and ambiguous blurb or I can dismantle it in a difficult and time-consuming response that requires study and thought, which you would dismiss as long and tedious C&P. Even if I wrote the response myself 20 years ago with someone who had the same thoughtless criticism as yours.

Is it still possible to be a theist? Yes! I was, those things did not destroy my faith they took away Biblical literalism as an option.

I know respected scientists, biologists even, who are theists. It's not an issue. Or at least it doesn't have to be. One of the questions I used to ask people who have the same lack of belief you have if they learned they were wrong would they change, and they always answer yes. I don't believe them so I don't ask it anymore. Theists can be believers but ideologues can't.

 

[axocanth]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Very interesting. Oh, and I love the quote "You know you've created your own god when it turns out that it hates all the same people you hate."

Just a quick comment on this . . .

By the way, you're wrong about science changing being a bad thing. Science is knowledge, knowledge in science and theology evolves as we learn. If it doesn't it becomes stagnant ideology. I'm often wrong unapologetically for that reason, thus I learn. I love truth above all other things. God is the ultimate truth. If I learned that God was a lie I would be done with God.

I didn't say it was a bad thing. I was reacting to Forrest Valkai's illogical remark "Science keeps changing. That's how you know you can trust it."

Before continuing, I'd note a possibly ambiguity in the word "trust" here. It's not entirely clear whether . . .

* You can trust that scientists are honest people and that they will always give you the best information they have (or something similar), or

* You can trust (= believe) the information thus proffered

. . . is being asserted.


I've no interest in the former claim pertaining to the integrity of the scientific community. I'm reacting to the latter claim.


Now, it may indeed be the case that Einstein's theory is an improvement over Newton's in terms of instrumental efficacy (i.e. accuracy of its predictions). It's a better tool, if you like. In this sense, then, it's a good thing.

But on the assumption that the two theories are mutually inconsistent -- as they surely are -- then it is not logically possible that they are both true. To believe both, then, would be to believe two contradictory accounts. Moreover, inasmuch as much knowledge entails truth, it is not logically possible that both accounts of how our universe really is constitute knowledge, contra your remarks above.

This kind of thing is fairly common in science. One account is replaced with another mutually inconsistent account, which is replaced again . . .
Think of theories of the nature of the Sun (a chemical furnace vs a nuclear reactor, etc.), the Earth, light (corpuscles vs waves vs photons, etc.), etc., etc. Einstein himself remarks somewhere that he expects his own theory to be overthrown some day. This appears to be the nature of science: one scientific revolution follows another, incompatible at the fundamental level with what came before, even if an improvement at the instrumental level.

Now if we're being given one contradictory account after another, barring some independent defeating reason to the contrary, the rational course of action is clear: believe none of them -- precisely as the pessimistic induction recommends. Yes, accept the instrumental benefits by all means, but to repeat, on the assumption of mutual incompatibility, it is not logically possible that one bit of knowledge is replaced by another bit of knowledge by another . . . Our universe cannot be both as Newton described and as Einstein described, let alone what a hundred other other theories have described, and all those to come in the future.


This is not an abandonment of science; it is an abandonment of scientific realism.

 

[axocanth]

Or to give a more simple example, suppose in 1860 we were told that the Earth is a few hundred thousand years old. And we were! Later we were told the Earth is a few million years old. Most recently we are told it is a few billion years old.

Now anyone -- a vampire perhaps who lived through it all and a subscriber to Forrest's channel -- who had taken Forrest's advice to "Trust the science through all the changes" would have had one false belief after another, after another, after another -- and no knowledge at all, with the possible exception of one of these beliefs (the current one?).

In simple cases like this, one can always argue that we're converging on the true value. It does require an argument, mind you!

This approach simply won't work, though, if we're being given a succession of theories which are just plain incompatible with one another at the fundamental level.

 

[axocanth]

Talk about overkill! I went into far more detail than was necessary to reveal the absurdity of Forrest Valkai's comment (post #635). Just consider two police detectives interrogating a suspect. During a pause, one remarks to the other "His story keeps changing. That's how we know we can believe what he's saying."

!!!!!!!!!

Note that adding to a story already given is not necessary problematic, just so long as it's consistent with what was already asserted. But that's not what Forrest says, and it's not the comment he's reacting to -- "The story keeps changing".

The actual facts of scientific history, then, are irrelevant to the craziness of Forrest's observation. How closely they do map onto Forrest's remark is another matter entirely. Advocates of scientific realism, however, had better hope that it's not the case that science is in an eternal state of flux, one claim to knowledge repeatedly replaced by another incompatible claim.

Whatever the facts are at the end of the day, Forrest is clearly confused.


Edit: Note also, Einstein could not be more explicit. He is not adding to the Newtonian story. He is changing it at the most fundamental level. See post #638.

 

[Pinball1970]

No, all of the so-called Biblical scholars you carefully select do

Nope. There is no so called about it. The reference I am using is, 'the Bible' by Bart D Ehrman.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, that version!

 

[Pinball1970]

Oh, that version!

Different book dude

 

[Revelation In Space]

As per the prophets these guys were social commentators not seers with crystal balls.

That's actually a good point, though unsubstantiated. God doesn't see the future because the future doesn't exist. When God foretells the future, through curse or prophecy, it comes from his broader perspective and intellect in seeing how things would undoubtedly unfold or through a statement of his will. He can either see how it will happen from a practical perspective or he will see that it does happen according to his will. People, especially sceptics, often mistake a curse as a hex and prophecy as omen.

They were writers speaking about events in the own lands and their own time and that includes John.

Show me the scripture and corresponding events. "Science" minded skeptics I've encountered often dismiss the celestial phenomenon described in John's revelation as the product of a primitive, superstitious madman. That's an unscientific assumption. Celestial phenomenon in the books of Daniel and Ezekiel use the same metaphoric language to describe events that would eventually take place in ancient Israel. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, for example. The post exilic return brought about a new government, a new people, a new environment. Revelation is the same thing on a grander, global scale. replaced by God's kingdom. A new government, a new people, a new environment.

The book is called the "apocalypse of John" which means "revealing," and he used apocalyptic imagery.
Daniel was the first to illustrate this sort of thinking and writing and Jesus was himself an apocalyptic thinker.

Daniel wasn't the first, Moses was. Genesis 3:15 is the first prophecy of the Messiah and the separation of Satan's people (seed) and God's people (seed, bride).

In short the Jews of that time thought that there must be evil in the world as even though they were following the law bad stuff was still happening to them,

They weren't following the law for the most part. In a sinful world bad stuff happens to good people, but all sin anyway. The rain that falls is beneficial for the wicked as well as the righteous.

therefore it was the devil and his demons at work. The devil would be destroyed and all in league with him and god would then come in power and establish his kingdom and the righteous would be vindicated and rewarded, those against god would be destroyed. Specifically the Roman empire. Jesus thought this was just around the corner.

No Jesus didn't. He said no one but the father knew the time of the end, and in that he didn't mean that the father knew beforehand, he meant that his father would decide when the time was right. That could be any time in the future.

“The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

in his lifetime.

"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"

No. The world was founded upon the blood of Abel and the prophets. The English word fuck means a throwing down of seed. The exact same meaning of the Greek word katabole, which the writers of the Christian Greek scripture often used. For example, in the founding of the world. Paul also used it in reference to Sarah conceiving. (Hebrews 11:11; 1 Peter 1:19-20; Luke 11:50-51) The founding of the world took place after Adam and Eve's sin. When they conceived their first child, Cain. In other words, Adam and Eve lived during the beginning of the end times. Jesus lived during that time and so do we. It could end tomorrow at 4:30 AM or a thousand years from now. People always think it's going to be in their time because the times always seem to reflect the natural progression, but no one knows.

Jesus' presence represented the kingdom of God. Some of those standing there did see the events before their deaths. It's not talking about the end of the world there.

 

[Revelation In Space]

axocanth I know what you are saying. Atheists use science as a sort of intellectual or academic facade. They 'know' God can't exist from science, though they can't even simply define the word God accurately. evolution must be true. It's settled. Fact. They have evidence. Evidence can be given for both sides of any case. Or should. They dismiss evidence for confirmation bias. Turn science into dogma. Ideologues. I always say believers tend to have a false sense of moral superiority while the unbelievers have a false sense of intellectual superiority.

 

[Revelation In Space]

This is probably better in the "pinball is a jerk thread" but ill answer this.

Pinball isn't a jerk. From my perspective he's a kind, intelligent, sensitive and passionate person. But your theology sucks and your debate skills aren't much to speak of. You don't listen to your opponent and you don't do the work. You make assumptions from crap you've read. For the most part and from what I can tell.

All scientific terms are bastardized and are muddy. Sugar, you put sugar in your coffee? What do you mean by that? Glucose? Usually you mean Sucrose. I drink alcohol but not methanol or ethan-1,2 diol because that would probably kill me. When I say alcohol I mean ethanol, 5% if its beer.
Same too with Bacteria, Bacteria is plural (I hear "a Bacteria" not " a bacterium" in the media) some are pathogenic so not, some become pathogenic if they go where they should not, opportunistic pathogens like Staph or when the immune system is compromised.

Culturing viruses and other intracellular parasites require cells as the name suggests. Why would you think scientists are not able to isolate viruses? That is how they map the genomes.

The scientists I referred to had the argument that a virus couldn't be isolated because he didn't understand that to isolate in biological terms didn't mean to isolate it from the host. You can't isolate a virus if you remove it from the host.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

axocanth I know what you are saying. Atheists use science as a sort of intellectual or academic facade. They 'know' God can't exist from science, though they can't even simply define the word God accurately. evolution must be true. It's settled. Fact. They have evidence. Evidence can be given for both sides of any case. Or should. They dismiss evidence for confirmation bias. Turn science into dogma. Ideologues. I always say believers tend to have a false sense of moral superiority while the unbelievers have a false sense of intellectual superiority.

Your knowledge of atheists is as lame as your knowledge of science. Try making your own medicines. I'll buy the pilot.