Why do we believe in God's existence or non-existence?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It is a fact that no real, conclusive proofs for the existence or the non-existence of God exist. Moreover, it seems impossible to find but one person whose opinion in the matter changed due to any of these arguments.
Another fact is that many rational and brilliant people are theists (believe in a certain God); and many others - rational and brilliant as well - are atheists (don't believe in any God). This combination of facts lead me to think that considering evidence for the existence or non-existence of God is not necessarily the reason for adopting atheism or theism (or any other stance).

Why is that?

My guess, which is at this stage more of a hunch than a solidified approach, goes thus:

Some people tend to carefully consider assumptions, which they accept as true ("beliefs"); others do not. But even the most critical people - those who try to consider all of their beliefs critically and repeatedly, to avoid false beliefs - cannot examine all of their beliefs all of the time. Also, there is a limit to any chain of reasons for beliefs. If, for instance, we believe that murder is forbidden, and base this belief on the right to life of every person (or every living creature), and maybe some more basic beliefs which justify this last one - eventually we're bound to reach the building blocks of our worldview, which cannot be justified: we cannot explain why we see them as true. We just do. These are the "axioms" of our worldview (although, of course, they are not necessarily true).

I do not think that the belief in God's existence or non-existence is one of these most basic beliefs, these "axioms". They seem to be too complex to be so basic. I suggest, instead, that our attitude towards the possibility of God's existence is dictated by a deeper intuition, that relating to our place in the world and relation to it, or in other words: the supposed origin of the meaning of life. Of course, we need not necessarily be aware of this derivation.

What does this mean? I, for instance, see the world within a naturalistic perception, as lacking any supernatural existence. Why do I see the world thus? I cannot explain. It simply makes more sense to me than believing in the existence of some supernatural entity or another. I see this as an axiom, and it's affecting the rest of my beliefs. One of the implications of this axiom is that I take myself (and any other living creature) to be no more than a grain of dust, in cosmic terms, which is fine by me. I have no further pretensions, and therefore I can find meaning in life, although it has to be an autonomic meaning, chosen by me. Meaning, according to this view, is not in the things themselves, but in what we make of them, or in how we see them.

Many people - some atheists included - see this innate meaninglessness as appalling, and the atheists among them try to find a "solution" to it, or see the autonomic meaning as a compromise. According to this second view, only a purpose to our life, if not to the whole universe, can fill our lives with meaning. I here refer to "purpose" as a predetermined end, and as such, God alone can set a purpose to a person's life (for it needs to be determined before the person is born, or even conceived). Anyone can choose ends in life, but not a life-purpose as defined here.

Just as the naturalistic view I described above leads to atheism, so this second view, involving a sense of purpose, dictates theism (in one version or another), since only an Intentional Designer could have given purpose to our life.

If I am correct, then many analyses of theistic or atheistic meanings of life miss a main point, which is that our strongest intuitions regard our life's meaning, and our attitude towards God's existence is its outcome.

(originally, and more aesthetically (I think), in my blog - )
Ripple Spark: Why Do We Believe in God's Existence or Non-Existence?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,512 • Replies: 27

No top replies

@adva,

Hi Adva, and welcome to the forum.

Are you saying that if people have a natural need to find innate meaning in life, then by an, likely unconscious, appeal to consequences they arrive at belief in a god? And that people who don't feel this need naturally will arrive at atheism, or at least agnosticism?

God belief then wouldn't be an "axiom" itself, but whether we feel the need to believe in innate purpose in life or not would be, and would ultimately affect whether one believes in a god or not.

If so, I basically agree with you. I think some people are naturally more satisfied by supernatural explanations, and some people are naturally satisfied by natural explanations. I think it's a trait, and is similar to the way that some people are, for example, naturally more inclined to be adventurous, while others are naturally more timid and careful. Some people feel the need to believe in an inherent purpose in life, while others do not. This then dictates their stance on god's existence. I get the idea that the concept can be more general, and not JUST apply to one's intuitions about the life's meaning. For example, personally, I'm more or less an atheist (although I grant, as you have, that there is no conclusive proof of God's non-existence) and feel as you apparently do, that all meaning in life is existential meaning. BUT, I would love for their to be inherent meaning in life... it's just that I have a tendency to believe natural explanations over supernatural ones, so regardless of what I want to believe, I can only believe what my brains tells me makes more sense, and seems to be more likely. But maybe I'm weird and most people aren't like me. That wouldn't be at all surprising. :bigsmile:

Also, there is some research that suggests whether or not one is a conservative or a liberal is greatly affected by innate physiological differences. I immediately thought "If this is true, could it be the same way with belief in a god?" Makes sense to me. If you're intersted here's a link to an article about that research - Laws of nature: How to spot a conservative - Telegraph and here's a link to the actual research article - The New Empirical Biopolitics which I don't personally have access to, but you may very well have.

2 Replies

@Deftil,

We all have tendency at certain times to try and comprehend these problems but leaps of faith are always a problem for either those who make them or observe them....

0 Replies

@Deftil,

And what would you say to a theist who believes that the only purpose to life is to live it?

2 Replies

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

And what would you say to a theist who believes that the only purpose to life is to live it?

I agree..wholeheartedly

0 Replies

@Solace,

Hi all,
Thanks for the replies (and the thanks!) :-)

Deftil, yes, that is more or less what I think, although, of course, I put this rather generally and left out most needed modifications for reasons of space.

Also, many such modifications are lacking because I don't yet know what exactly they should be; At least at this point I see this "theory" more as wild guess... :-)

This is why I can't supply a complete answer to Solace's (and xris') comment: of course, theists don't necessarily see the world and their life as having a predetermined purpose, but I think it is a necessary belief for those believing in an intentional Creator (for otherwise, why create a world and creatures?)
However, even a belief in a Divine purpose for life still doesn't make it necessary to see this purpose as the meaning of life. Some theists do see it thst way, and I think this may be their incentive for belief in God. I think (but am quite unsure) that maybe some of these theists think that if God gave our life a purpose, it is necessary that it be the purpose we adopt as our life's meaning.

But your question still remains unanswered. My gut feeling is that even those theists, who find their life's meaning in other things (besides God's assigned purpose) may still have the feeling that life in general is apt to be meaningful because of its having a divine purpose. Compare, for instance, with Thomas Nagel or Richard Taylor, who saw life devoid of a purpose as absurd. This is a very different outset for contemplating upon one's life meaning, one's place in the world etc., and I think that this big difference may already partly dictate possible conclusions.

0 Replies

@adva,

adva;37698 wrote:

It is a fact that no real, conclusive proofs for the existence or the non-existence of God exist.

Woah, there, doctor! Nice to meet you, but the first horse out of the gate appears to be lame!
No, it is not a 'fact', as asserted.
There are many people, many Perspectives, that not only see 'evidence', but that perceived evidence is deemed sufficient to be considered 'proof conclusive', for those particular 'theists' and 'atheists' alike.

Quote:

Moreover, it seems impossible to find but one person whose opinion in the matter changed due to any of these arguments.

Such is the error of conflating 'belief' and 'critical thought'. They appear to have an inversely proportional relationship.

Quote:

Another fact is that many rational and brilliant people are theists (believe in a certain God); and many others – rational and brilliant as well – are atheists (don't believe in any God). This combination of facts lead me to think that considering evidence for the existence or non-existence of God is not necessarily the reason for adopting atheism or theism (or any other stance).

You are making the same assumptive error that classical physics has been making; there is a 'one-size-fits-all' Perspective where all who view the 'evidence' view it the same way and interpret it the same way and that the moment of 'observation' is the same context in which the 'evidence' will appear in another moment of observation ... The foundational assumption is flawed.
It's a matter of, like I mentioned earlier, Perspective.

Quote:

Some people tend to carefully consider assumptions, which they accept as true ("beliefs"); others do not.

It appears that the mose carefully considered, the more application of 'critical thought', the less the possibility of a, as mentioned earlier, 'belief' formation.

Quote:

But even the most critical people – those who try to consider all of their beliefs critically and repeatedly, to avoid false beliefs – cannot examine all of their beliefs all of the time.

True, though I hold no beliefs at all. I do take things, often, things with high probabilities, as a (tentative) 'given'; a working hypothesis. I don't always look to see if the floor is there when I roll from my pallet, and someday, perhaps, that will be a fatal error. We can't live forever... What is, is.

Quote:

I, for instance, see the world within a naturalistic perception, as lacking any supernatural existence. Why do I see the world thus? I cannot explain.

There is no 'why' (unless you have one!), there just 'is'. 'This Perspective' is who you are, at this moment. Things are, for you, as you perceive them to be. Perhaps a 'why' is that the complete definition of the complete tapestry of Omniverse at the moment of perception, is the sum total of all possible Perspectives (us) Now! and Now! and Now!

Quote:

It simply makes more sense to me than believing in the existence of some supernatural entity or another.

Of course, youPerspective is youPerspective!

Quote:

Meaning, according to this view, is not in the things themselves, but in what we make of them, or in how we see them.

And to 'this' view, also! That makes two Perspectives that see that! Strictly a matter of Perspective...

Quote:

Why do we believe in God's existence or non-existence?

Why do 'we' 'believe' in anything??
Perhaps 'beliefs' naturally occur/manifest in cognitive areas of the mind that are naturally 'weak' in critical thought? Remember the inversely proportional relationship?
As to the 'what' of 'belief', it seems to basically relate to emotional needs and psychological processes, as well as environment, 'memetic' influences, 'genetic' influences, etc...

1 Reply

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Why do 'we' 'believe' in anything??
Perhaps 'beliefs' naturally occur/manifest in cognitive areas of the mind that are naturally 'weak' in critical thought? Remember the inversely proportional relationship?
As to the 'what' of 'belief', it seems to basically relate to emotional needs and psychological processes, as well as environment, 'memetic' influences, 'genetic' influences, etc...

... I just finished reading an interesting essay to the effect that a form of idealism is a necessary first step toward realism ... that to postulate that the world is real is an act of idealism - and postulate we must, simply because without that initial "belief":

1. we can't distinguish between true and false with respect to factual matters nor operate the idea of truth as agreement with reality
2. we can't distinguish between appearance and reality, between our picture of reality and reality itself
3. we have no basis for intersubjective communication
4. we have no basis for a shared project of communal inquiry
5. we have no basis for a fallibilistic view of human knowledge
6. we cannot individually learn and inquire because there is no objective basis of experience to learn and inquire about

... that is, the idea of realism must (at least initially) be believed (if simply on pragmatic terms) in order to get anywhere.

As far as this conversation is concerned, whatever flavor that initial belief takes I think coincides with what you're calling a "perspective" ... for now, let's just identify two flavors:

I. Theistic Realism (the real world exists because God(s) created it)
II. Atheistic Realism (the real world exists)

In either flavor, the uncritical mind sees how pragmatically valuable realism is and takes this as proof of their initial belief; whereas the critical mind takes this pragmatic value as corroboration of their initial belief, but intellectually acknowledges that the fallibility of human knowledge is such that come tomorrow realism itself may be refuted.

What's interesting is that Atheistic Realism exists at all ... in a human world where cause and intention reign supreme, it is illogical to think that the real world was not intentionally caused ... atheism seems to be more of a reaction to religious dogmas (which deny the idea of truth as agreement with reality) than it is a rational alternative to theism ... but my own personal opinion: atheism was a Pandora's Box ... now that the idea that the real world can exist independent of any Gods has been let out of the bag, there's no putting it back.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;37880 wrote:

nameless wrote:
Why do 'we' 'believe' in anything??
Perhaps 'beliefs' naturally occur/manifest in cognitive areas of the mind that are naturally 'weak' in critical thought? Remember the inversely proportional relationship?
As to the 'what' of 'belief', it seems to basically relate to emotional needs and psychological processes, as well as environment, 'memetic' influences, 'genetic' influences, etc...

... I just finished reading an interesting essay to the effect that a form of idealism

idealism;
a. any system or theory that maintains that the real is of the nature of thought or that the object of external perception consists of ideas.
b. the tendency to represent things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values.

Quote:

is a necessary first step toward realism

realism;
a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism

Quote:

... that to postulate that the world is real is an act of idealism - and postulate we must, simply because without that initial "belief":

Idealism, as in definition 'a' is not a 'belief', it is science. It is the current cutting edge of understanding of existence. It need not be 'believed' to be tentatively accepted as what has not been 'refuted' (yet).
What has been 'refuted' is the notion that our senses perceive the whole picture of reality/'the' omniverse as it is. An 'information wave' is not really a sunny day anywhere other than as an appearance in your mind. From a certain Perspective.

Quote:

1. we can't distinguish between true and false with respect to factual matters nor operate the idea of truth as agreement with reality
2. we can't distinguish between appearance and reality, between our picture of reality and reality itself
3. we have no basis for intersubjective communication
4. we have no basis for a shared project of communal inquiry
5. we have no basis for a fallibilistic view of human knowledge
6. we cannot individually learn and inquire because there is no objective basis of experience to learn and inquire about

All that you list is arbitrary, not universal at all but mainly a relic of perspective. We can certainly share dreams, but they are dreams nontheless. Local phenomena with local 'rules' that are different depending on the context of the moment and the Perspective. I interact with the people in my head as if they were 'really out there' somewhere. It is a game of 'make believe'. I knoew that there is nothing beyond my perceptions (for me) and that the complete tapestry of the universe, at the moment of definition, is the sum total of all Perspectives! The bit that you see, plus the bit that I perceive, etc = Complete Omniverse. We see 'reality' but just a very limited view of it, a miniscule bitty view. Some Perspectives are a bit 'wider' than others, but all are limited and all necessary for the complete picture.

Quote:

... that is, the idea of realism must (at least initially) be believed (if simply on pragmatic terms) in order to get anywhere.

It was known as 'naive realism', and has been refuted and replaced with the 'a' definition of 'idealism'. Whether 'believed' or 'hypothesized', naive realism is obsolete. The difference is that those who 'hypothesized' it have moved on to greater understandings and the 'believers' defend their 'knowledge of the truth'.
Hence the inversely proportional relationship of 'belief' and 'critical thought'.

Quote:

As far as this conversation is concerned, whatever flavor that initial belief takes I think coincides with what you're calling a "perspective"

A Perspective is not a 'belief', it is what we are; Conscious Perspective ('Soul'), a 'limited' unique view. Not a definition unlike the common definitions of Perspective, which is the way that I use it; add up the dictionary definitions and thats about my intent when I use the word. 'Belief' doesnt necessarily have anything to do with it.

Quote:

... for now, let's just identify two flavors:

I. Theistic Realism (the real world exists because God(s) created it)
II. Atheistic Realism (the real world exists)

In either flavor, the uncritical mind sees how pragmatically valuable realism is and takes this as proof of their initial belief;

realism; a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. It is not 'pragmatically valuable, no one 'adopts' naive realism because it is 'pragmatic' somehow. Everyone's way that they see the world is 'pragmatic' to one extent or another, to them. It's your 'dream', of course it works for you! Some even 'believe' it to be ultimate reality!

Quote:

whereas the critical mind takes this pragmatic value as corroboration of their initial belief, but intellectually acknowledges that the fallibility of human knowledge is such that come tomorrow realism itself may be refuted.

'Realism is refuted, obsolete, once the 'believers' die off.
Where there is 'belief' in the mind, there is no 'critical thought' to the extent of that 'belief'.
Beliefs find validation and rationalization in accidental places. It is not science but psychological processes.

Quote:

What's interesting is that Atheistic Realism exists at all

According to the definition, 'theism' or 'atheism' is irrelevent to the definition 'a' of 'realism'. Why shouldn't an 'atheist' not believe/trust the 'evidence of his senses? If he cannot trust that, there would be no firm footing upon which to feel steady and secure. Almost all humans 'need' that 'feeling' of stability (to one extent or another relates to the depth of the 'belief'), for emotional and mental reasons; godders and non-godders alike.

Quote:

... in a human world where cause and intention reign supreme,

Uh oh! 'Causality' is an obsolete notion, and human 'will/intent' is a mere vanity/belief! Nothing 'supreme' here, but to the particular dreamer and their 'need' to believe...

Quote:

it is illogical to think that the real world was not intentionally caused ...

Nonsense!

Quote:

atheism seems to be more of a reaction to religious dogmas

More nonsense. What is not believing in guardian angels that sit on people's shoulders whispering sweet advice and limmericks "a reaction to"? Do you think that the 'heathen' even need to 'react' to someone claiming to see these things? I doubt it. They don't 'believe' because they see no reason to believe. No evidence. The 'believers' see evidence all over the place! It is a 'religious' disingenuousness to make the statement that you have made, slandering and degrading the atheist in one swell foop! Not fair or allowed.

Quote:

(which deny the idea of truth as agreement with reality)

No, atheists deny there being evidence enough to 'believe/hypothesize' God. So they don't. Atheism is not about 'truth' or 'reality', it is about not 'believing'.

Quote:

now that the idea that the real world can exist independent of any Gods has been let out of the bag, there's no putting it back.

Nor should it be. It takes the sum total of all Perspectives to make an omniverse!

"For every Perspective, there is an *equal* and opposite Perspective!" -'First Law of Soul Dynamics'; Book of Fudd (1:2)

Peace

2 Replies

@nameless,

Thanks for the replies!

Nameless: I am aware of my controversial use of the world "fact" in relation to proofs for and against the existence of God. However, since a proof is necessarily conclusive (isn't that what a proof is all about, unless it is mistaken)?, I think it is quite justified to deny the existence of any such "proof". Otherwise, the debate about the existence of God would have ceased.

Anyway, I have no interest in this debate in itself (at least not in the present context); I am interested in the reasons that lead rational people to believe either that God exists or that God doesn't exist (exactly because there is no conclusive proof for either belief).

I agree, of course, that there are many perspectives, and that many people (theists and atheists alike) do think that they hold a proof for what they think is the truth. Yet God either exists or doesn't exist, and therefore, it is not a matter of perspective: it is either true or false - objectively - that God exists.

Beliefs, on the other hand, need not necessarily be proven, although - as explained - I don't refer to "belief" in the sense of "faith", but in the sense of "a proposition accepted as true". We ALL have beliefs in this sense, it is impossible to live otherwise. As for faith, indeed it plays an important part in some theists' (and maybe also atheists') worldview, but it is not philosophically interesting.

You seem to use the term "perspective" to mean what I called (subjective) axioms - basic beliefs that cannot be based, being too primary to base (since the best we can hope for is either circularity or infinite regression). However, the fact that these cannot be critically based doesn't necessarily make them irrational. Given a good reason, a rational person might indeed change or refine them. The fact that we do not practically do this continuously is a matter of practicality, not necessarily of irrationality.

This is why, to come back to my suggestion, I don't think that important beliefs we hold, such as those regarding God's existence, are merely a result of "emotional needs and psychological processes, as well as environment, 'memetic' influences, 'genetic' influences, etc...", like you said. This may be the prosaic beginning - after all, we usually start to critically consider our beliefs only at a certain and not-too-young age. Upon reaching that age, however, many of us reconsider at least our central beliefs, and I see this as one of those.

Hence my initial question: WHY do we believe that God does/doesn't exist? - I think that possibly, logically prior beliefs lead us to conclude this belief.

Paulhanke: as I just explained above, I quite agree that first assumptions are a must. I don't respond here to your ideas of atheism (which are, at most, limited to some very specific kind of atheism which I have not heard of).

However, I see the choice of initial beliefs ("axioms") as quite opposed to what you presented: I suggested, in my original post, that belief in the existence or non-existence of God is a derivative of a more basic belief about the nature of the world. I quite disagree with Nameless assertion that "Atheism is not about 'truth' or 'reality', it is about not 'believing'": you use the word "belief" here in the sense of faith, which is quite irrelevant to the present matter; but more importantly - I definitely hold atheism because I think it is true, and fairly describes reality. Maybe not everyone seeks the truth, but many people - theists, atheists and many others - absolutely do.

3 Replies

@adva,

adva;37916 wrote:

I think it is quite justified to deny the existence of any such "proof".

You repeat yourself. I already refuted your proposition.

Quote:

I am interested in the reasons that lead rational people to believe either that God exists or that God doesn’t exist (exactly because there is no conclusive proof for either belief).

I also spoke to that question and provided some food for thought.
Never mind, you obviously either didn't read my post or didn't understand it. Either way, thats fine as I made my point and there will be other Perspectives perceiving this truncated discussion that will/can understand what I said.
Before i leave though;

adva;37916 wrote:

"a proposition accepted as true". We ALL have beliefs in this sense, it is impossible to live otherwise.

You are again mistaken, I accept nothing as 'true'. I accept probabilities and act accordingly.
So, according to you, I am not living? Perhaps... But I've already dealt with 'believers' who cannot 'believe' that there are those without 'beliefs'; an emotional thing it seems.

As you haven't read and/or given any thought to my generous response, I'll extend the same 'courtesy'.

nameless out

0 Replies

@adva,

The need for such a tone is a bit beyond me. Exactly how is Adva wrong to point out that no conclusive proof for either saying "I know god is real" or "I know god is not real" exists - external of any one given mind, if you like?

1 Reply

@adva,

I think people feel a strong metaphysical pull to requiring answers to questions like:

Why do some people behave unjustly and thrive?

Why do some people behave kindly and wither?

People don't even seem to agree on what is or isn't just - is there a universal measure of such things?

My body stops working at death - does my consciousness stop working too?

During my life and the lives of others many bewilderingly odd coincidences occur, how so?

Recent history is full of projects and purposes - does this mean there is a project or purpose to long-term history?

What happened before I was born, what will happen after I die?

And so on...

I reckon that religions invent answers to such questions, and that the religions with the most simple, conclusive, comforting and/or insightful answers tend to do better than those who give rather less eloquent answers. A God will often be a major component of such answers, as it is very satisfying to have an ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong and purpose.

Individuals are either brought up in a system that provides these answers, and tend to remain loyal to it (though many may be tempted away by other systems of providing answers if they are introduced to them at a convenient or critical juncture, or by a particularly charismatic evangelist).

Pointing out that there is no need for such answers is attractive to some others (who may be just as susceptable to evangelism or moments of crisis as those who require answers).

I'd place myself in the "no need for answers" camp - though I admit it may just be as a result of not having met a particularly charismatic evangelist of a system of particularly satisfying answers.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;37918 wrote:

The need for such a tone is a bit beyond me. Exactly how is Adva wrong to point out that no conclusive proof for either saying "I know god is real" or "I know god is not real" exists -

The point is that I responded to this already in my post and gave a fair refutation that obviously was ignored (I see that you missed it, too), as evidenced in his (and your) response.
I, also, have experience with 'believers' who are ready to call me a liar and argue with me when I say that I hold no 'beliefs', and frankly, I'm out of polite patience with such idiotic and arrogant disrespect. Notice his capitalization of "ALL", already implying me a liar.
And, as he didnt extend the 'courtesy', I won't waste my valuable (to me, anyway) time.

Quote:

external of any one given mind, if you like?

I don't like. There in no, nor can there ever be, any evidence of anything existing 'external' to Mind. With no evidence, it's no more than idle speculation.

If you wish to continue this conversation, you are welcome, as is anyone, to PM me.
Peace

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

I think people feel a strong metaphysical pull to requiring answers to questions like:

Why do some people behave unjustly and thrive?

Why do some people behave kindly and wither?

People don't even seem to agree on what is or isn't just - is there a universal measure of such things?

My body stops working at death - does my consciousness stop working too?

During my life and the lives of others many bewilderingly odd coincidences occur, how so?

Recent history is full of projects and purposes - does this mean there is a project or purpose to long-term history?

What happened before I was born, what will happen after I die?

And so on...

I reckon that religions invent answers to such questions, and that the religions with the most conclusive, comforting and/or insightful answers tend to do better than those who give rather less eloquent answers.

Individuals are either brought up in a system that provides these answers, and tend to remain loyal to it (though many may be tempted away by other systems of providing answers if they are introduced to them at a convenient or critical juncture, or by a particularly charismatic evangelist).

Pointing out that there is no need for such answers is attractive to some others (who may be just as susceptable to evangelism or moments of crisis as those who require answers).

Hi Dave,

I agree, though, just to be clear - I refer to philosophical motives such as mentioned above, not psychological ones (of course they also exist, but they are not the issue here). Since all of these mentioned above might be understood both ways, I wanted to be clear.

Nameless,

First of all, I'm a woman. Secondly, I have no idea what caused you to get so upset, but that's your concern, and I have no intention of having personal "quarrels". Anyway, you have not refuted the fact that no proof exists for the existence or non-existence of God; you merely said that some people believe this or that argument is sound (which doesn't proove that they are not mistaken). (I also don't see how such prooving and refuting goes along with your idea of never believing and only conjecturing, but it's not really relevant to the matter I brought up.)

0 Replies

@adva,

Quote:

(I see that you missed it, too)

No, I read it - I just don't necessarily see it as fair refutation. Perhaps Adva has made the mistake of not defining what proof means to her - but it seems clear to me that she is talking about the impossibility of providing demonstrable proof - to a third party - of the existence or non-existence of God. You seem - rather angrily - to want to pull the focus of the debate into the realms of hardcore phenomenology - "you can prove nothing" sort of thing.

Quote:

I, also, have experience with 'believers' who are ready to call me a liar and argue with me when I say that I hold no 'beliefs', and frankly, I'm out of polite patience with such idiotic and arrogant disrespect. Notice his capitalization of "ALL", already implying me a liar.

Well, a quick look at Adva's blog was enough to see that "he" was a "she" (seeing as we're talking about paying attention to posts and all). I don't feel the "ALL" was necessary either - but it's one word in an otherwise rather thoughtful few posts.

You seem to be taking this all rather personally - why not accept that Adva's comments were generally about people not being able to provide concrete evidence for their theological position - rather than insulting the ... beliefs ... of the true nihilist?

0 Replies

@adva,

[quote]I agree, though, just to be clear - I refer to philosophical motives such as mentioned above, not psychological ones (of course they also exist, but they are not the issue here). Since all of these mentioned above might be understood both ways, I wanted to be clear.[/quote]I don't find it easy to see the distinction. Forced to consider what would be the underlying cause of this 'need' I would suppose it to be evolutionary.

For example, I can see how feeling hurt by injustice might improve survival chances by influencing you to keep good company - a result of genetic predilections towards altruistic individuals. The need for a purpose might influence long-term planning and even care for offspring.

Furthermore, religions offer the sort of environment that encourages social cohesion and a high degree of cooperative behaviour, and so may also fulfil a 'need' we have as a result of an evolutionary process.

But I'm not sure if this is a strictly philosophical response either.

0 Replies

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Idealism, as in definition 'a' is not a 'belief' ...

... isn't any a priori acceptance of an idea "belief"? ... and Rescher (the author of the essay) is splitting hairs very finely here - his argument that the a priori acceptance of the idea of realism is a form of idealism might be paraphrased as follows: the idea of realism is, well, and idea; and the idea of realism sure as heck ain't realism itself ...

nameless wrote:

We can certainly share dreams, but they are dreams nontheless.

... none of this denies that ... here, Rescher is pointing out what can't be without the a priori acceptance of the idea of realism ... one of the implications being that in the absence of the idea of realism subjective ideas are all that we can communicate ...

nameless wrote:

It was known as 'naive realism', and has been refuted and replaced with the 'a' definition of 'idealism'.

... I'm not sure that it has ... there exist more refined forms of realism than just naive realism ...

nameless wrote:

According to the definition, 'theism' or 'atheism' is irrelevent to the definition 'a' of 'realism'.

... what I'm trying to propose here is the possibility that given the a priori nature of the acceptance of realism that other ideas may be able to uncritically piggy-back their way in if they are for whatever reason associated with the idea of realism (e.g., "the real world exists because God created it") ...

nameless wrote:

Uh oh! 'Causality' is an obsolete notion, and human 'will/intent' is a mere vanity/belief! Nothing 'supreme' here, but to the particular dreamer and their 'need' to believe...

... perhaps if you're a philosopher ... but philosophers are hardly representative of humankind ...

nameless wrote:

Nonsense!

... try a little induction ... and remember, we're talking about people who haven't read Nietzche Wink

...

nameless wrote:

More nonsense. What is not believing in guardian angels that sit on people's shoulders whispering sweet advice and limmericks "a reaction to"? Do you think that the 'heathen' even need to 'react' to someone claiming to see these things? I doubt it. They don't 'believe' because they see no reason to believe. No evidence. The 'believers' see evidence all over the place! It is a 'religious' disingenuousness to make the statement that you have made, slandering and degrading the atheist in one swell foop! Not fair or allowed.

... so you're saying that the first atheists of the Enlightenment were not believers who rejected their beliefs because the prevailing Christianity was not matching up to reality? ... remember, this thread is in large part about where ideas came from - that is, how we arrived at where ideas are today ...

0 Replies

@adva,

adva wrote:

Hence my initial question: WHY do we believe that God does/doesn't exist? - I think that possibly, logically prior beliefs lead us to conclude this belief.

... or (as I tried to suggest, but obviously failed), the apparent evidence for logically associated beliefs reinforces this belief ... if an ancient hunter-gatherer looks around and sees a world of cause and intention, why wouldn't their approach to realism be "the real world exists because someone intentionally caused it"? ... and given that the notion that "the real world exists" aligns so well with experience, doesn't that support the rest by implication? (at least to an unschooled mind?) ... move the time machine forward a few millennia, and here we are ... at a point where (as nameless points out) environment, memetics, genetics - PARENTS - provide the initial seed of realism ... a seed that can often be traced back to that hunter-gatherer's insight ...

0 Replies

@adva,

As I understand the original question and its suggested answer, the question really is about the philosophic grounds for the belief in the existence of God (vaguely defined for our purposes), and further, are these grounds prior (in thought if not in time) to that belief. Perhaps a more congenial and fruitful discussion could begin by reconsidering this, or restarting from the beginning.

This question, then, does not concern itself with emotional, psychological, or historical causes however interesting or pertinent to religious belief in general or to someone's particular belief in a religious credo.

Doesn't it seem that the "rational" (or philosophic) justification for accepting the existence of God depends on a prior conception of truth, and whether the arguments or evidences or warrants for such belief are "truthful?"
For example, the position that the concept of truth can only be applied with legitimacy to analytic propositions and those matter of fact statements about the universe (defined as everything there is but God), then any statement about God or its existence could not be true.

At some point in one's life, the question of truth in relation to religion arises and a decision is required. And even to avoid this question is to make a decision.

2 Replies

Why do we believe in God's existence or non-existence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know