Why should I believe in the concept of god?

Re: Why should I believe in the concept of god?


Me either.



Some people need it; the desire for comfort and safety from a powerful "parent", and the promise of belonging, are temptations too primordial to resist.

Other people either don't need this type of comfort, or find it in another form.

But no matter the range of variation, there is one thing in common; everyone settles upon a view which satisfies their particular needs.

truth
Yes, Rosborne, the satisfaction of needs. If we focus on needs then all the ways--not just belief in monotheism--these needs are met, we'll end up with a clearer picture of the role of religion in human society. Note that I say religion in society. Not all individuals are religious, but every society contains "religious" myths and rituals of sorts. There is the problem, of course, of how to define "religion" in a way that will encompass all the variations seen. In addition to monotheism, there is nature spirit worship (as in the various forms of animism and animatism); there are spirit systems in which various forms of supernatural creatures are held in contempt and posited in order to explain all sorts of troubles people endure; there is ancestor worship, most often to explain the source of illness (e.g., punishment from ancestors for unconventional behavior); there is polytheism such as experienced by the Greeks and Romans, there are mystical religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism, etc.) designed to re-integrate the individuals with his and her source.
But what are the functions of religion, functions that reflect the most important needs emphasized by individuals and cultures? Fear of the oblivion of death is widespread; Fear of Hell is to me, in the West, a derivative of the first:in Medieval times the Church was able to say to people that it is not the inevitability of death that they should fear but the possibility of eternal suffering in Hell. This converted a problem for which there is no solution (our unavoidable death) to one for which there is a solution (going to Heaven rather than Hell by obeying the dictates of the Church). There are other existential problems as well: fear of drought, the death of animals during the birthing season, fear of plagues, etc.. There may be for the more sensitive a sense of the ulitmate meaningless of it all. All of these problems may be met by various forms of religion.
But Nietzsche's "overman" (ubermench and uberwench :wink: , superman) is one who has decided to live with his/her realities and to try to understand their nature and whether or not they are real or illusorily--and as honestly as possible.

Re: truth

I can relate to the ultimate meaninglessness you refer to. I have absolutely no idea why I (or the other 6 billion, for that matter) am alive. What is the whole point here? Sadly, I doubt anyone else has the answer to this. Believing in god does not seem to be logical to me. It most certainly does not answer any of my questions. Maybe that's what enlightenment is all about... when you finally "get it".

truth
I agree, Unbiased. Nietzsche said "life is an on-going accident." I would add, what a fortunate one. I don't like to be asked why I SHOULD believe in God?, or What is the meaning of Life? Both are meaningless. When I am tasting a great pasta dish or sipping a delightful wine I never ask the latter question. As I die painfully I am more likely to ask it, but I hope I will see meaning in the pain itself, just as I do now in the pasta and the wine. To me the on-going accident is its own meaning.

I like that last sentence, JL.

I believe in God simply because I cannot believe that everything I see around me happened by mere chance. Someone HAD to 'make' it. I also believe in God because I need a higher power...someone who's bigger than me to get through life. I'm sure some people see this as a weakness and, maybe it is. I just know that it comforts me to believe that when my time here on earth is finished, I have the promise of heaven...a beautiful place of beauty, love and where my loved ones who passed before me will be.

JLNobody,

Are you really content with seeing yourself merely as a result of an accident? Sounds quite depressing to me. You claim that you hope to see meaning in pain itself. Could you elaborate on that? I really don't understand what you mean, as I assume that pain must be an accident as well. How could an accident possibly be seen as "meaning"? Isn't meaning by definition something that is not random, i.e. has a purpose?

Well since God is love, if you have any love in your heart for anything or anyone around you, you already know God - you just don't realize it. Even if you don't believe in God, he still loves you more than anything you can imagine. When we believe in him and acknowledge him, he gives us a sense of peace and joy like you cannot imagine. And this peace and joy will be magnified millions of times when we join him in Heaven after our physical body perishes here on earth. I wish you luck in your search.

reading along

ptreegardn; If God is love, I suspect that it would be shown a bit more obviously. However the dominant actions of humans seems to be a tendency for the religious amongst us to use hate as a form of dominance which can be easily predicted when one studies the interactions of societies, whether human or animal. Do you really need examples

Derevon, It's no accident at all. It's simply the result of the random actions of energies over a period of time and volumes which can not even be imagined by most people. It is much simpler to imagine that a God exists, UNTIL you begin to describe that God. Once you start trying to describe and discuss the various attributes that a God MUST possess you very rapidly come up against sufficient contradictions and impossibilities that makes the very existence of a God unimaginable. Concluding that IMO (natch) the existence of a God requires a very distorted view of (what IS) or a very fertile imagination.
Or at least an ability to imagine that exceeds ones knowlege of reality. :wink:

Doglover, This view (the principle of causality) was well debated by St. Francis in which he attempted to describe God as a "Prime Mover" or "First Cause".
However this hypothesis runs into difficulty when it becomes evident that no "first cause" is necessary. If "it is- then it will and it was" become sufficient justification to explain us and the here and now.

Now the reality of what we see, however imperfectly, is that humans are basically lazy. All of us make a living the easiest way we know how to, considering our desires. None of us work any harder than is necessary to satisfy our dreams and expectations. There would be no reason to. So, believe you me, there is a class of people that have found out that preparing souls for heaven is easier for them than loading pulpwood onto a truck, building houses, or operating a financial system. When the basics of religions are taken to the nitty gritty we find that the plain unvarnished truth is that it is a physically and mentally undemanding way to make a living. That is if one is sufficiently amoral .

Believe in him I do not. But that does not mean I am not at peace. Infact I am quite sure that I am more at peace than so many of the believers. I have always had a very positive outlook toward life without having to turn to someone or something, that by all reasonable means, does not exist.
As for having your peace and joy magnified when you join "him"... how do you know that will happen? I for one, have no clue what will become of me once I die. And I sure am curious to find out. But all in good time. Let me first make the most of this very strange thing called life

Sheesh, you sure have much faith in your logic. Of course there is bound to be paradoxes when the finite looks towards the infinite. Imagine the largest number you could ever think of, and it still would be nothing compared to infinity. The finite simply cannot be compared to the infinite. There's no ratio between these two. In my opinion it's someone who thinks that God cannot exist because he/she cannot figure it out logically who has a distorted view. Especially if he/she considers himself/herself merely a result of evolution. What makes you think that you have anywhere nearly enough intelligence and knowledge to comprehend ultimate reality? I'd say any paradoxes about God that a person can think of is solely the result of his/her limited nature/wisdom/knowledge/intelligence etc.

Sheesh, I have some little faith in my logic. I have considerably less in my imagination . However I have quite a lot in our joint (human) powers of observation.

For instance---- When we consider that even a mouse mother will protect her young to the limits of her ability, as will a lion and a woman, Then we can safely conclude that "mother love" is a real description of a successful mammilian trait. That can be explained quite (IMO) satisfactorily by genetic theories as they relate to social organizations. Whether they relate to mouse society, lion society, or human society.

So can we, based on the evidence, conclude that "Gods Love" is a Divine Trait

So, since we have no good (admissable) evidence that "a divine love for humanity" is a divine trait, rather than a mammalian one, "Gods Love" is very poor testimony as to the existence of "divine love" as a theory of Gods existence.

I try not to say that Gods cannot exist. I merely point out that there is no evidence that one does, outside of our imaginations of course.

For once I am actually following Mechsmith...

I suppose the question still remains that if faith of one sort or another results in humans being more positive, productive people, is it necessarily a bad thing?

I am in no way suggesting that faith come from a religious view, but the concept itself does influence all humans. You may trust your faith in science, in god, in your ability to be a good parent....remove 'faith' from the 'god concept' and you have a pretty good life philosophy at your fingertips.

Sharp comment, Cav..

"Faith in science" though existent in many humans is an oxymoron.

Well, yes, if you define faith there as actual faith. But if you take the phrase as an inclination to appreciate scientific criteria applied with rigor, then that might describe how you filter the flow of statements and questions in daily life... about the same as the phrase "tends toward the scientific view of things".

Faith in science as a belief leap, nah. Science is a process of knowing. Big faithy leaps don't usually work in science, and if they do, have some kind of quick cognition behind them.

Ah, in my opinion.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying osso.

Well, me either, Craven. You know I just talk.

Ok, one can have a conviction that the scientific method is a worthwhile method for filtering flying data.

Is that or is it not faith?

Faith, to me, means some kind of leap, almost sans data.

But I think people mix up the two, as "conviction about process" to one person is faith to another.