Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eduk]

Actually it reminds me of storytelling 101. If you are shooting a film you don't have a character say that they spent three years in the military and are a crack shot you show them being a crack shot and they act as if they had been in the military just in the way they load a gun or check sights etc.

[Fanman]

Eduk:

I agree. It is not correct to simply take the person's word for it. We can either believe them or not believe them. Personally, I think that the default position on religious claims should be scepticism.

Pointing to one proximate underlying cause as Spectrum has seems presumptuous or simply wrong to me. How does one go about proving that there's a single underlying cause for religious belief? Wouldn't that be akin to looking for a needle in a haystack? I think he's right that it is one of the causes of religious belief, but it is clearly not the only cause, and therefore may not be the proximate (root) cause, as there are other causes that could be "proximate".

I can and do dismiss many claims, but I think that there may be, perhaps, 1 in 100,000 claims that has some validity. I understand that my viewpoint has little traction (or may be fallacious), but I just think that in terms of probability 1 in 100,000 claims might be justifiable anecdotally. Whilst human perception is not an accurate measuring tool, and is subject to error, delusion, misinterpretation etc, some people (in all of human existence) may have encountered something "spiritual" or genuinely religious.

[Eduk]

Fanman I completely agree with your summary of underlying causes.
However I have issues with your 1 in 100,000. I mean I don't believe 1 in 100,000 anecdotal claims on homeopathy.
Please explain the difference between the claims so that I can understand.

[Eduk]

Or maybe let me back a different example. Some people claim to have seen aliens. I believe no human has seen an alien but I am agnostic as to whether it is possible for a human to have seen an alien. I believe that it is highly likely there are aliens but I am agnostic as to whether the technology to visit earth is possible. So I conclude that there may be a chance that someone has met an alien. But I don't believe any human has met an alien.

[Scribbler60]

Let's take this back to the original question: why believe in a god when it is impossible to prove?

As a one-time believer, I took great comfort in the idea of a divine superintelligence that was looking out for me and was going to dry every tear and right every wrong. There is something ingrained in humans in our desire for justice and balance.

And I know more than one family that has lost a child (is there a worse pain? I think not) that continues on in the hope and trust that they will see their lost child again, after death.

None of that makes a god true, of course, but there is a certain utility in believing. And if people choose to believe because it gives them comfort, who am I to tell them that they're believing in a fantasy?

[Belindi]

Spectrum, I am sorry but I can't make my ideas any clearer to you. What you write in your last is not what I think or agree with.

[Eduk]

Scribbler there is a difference between deliberately seeking out bereaved parents with the express purpose of telling them they are taking utilitarian comfort in a fantasy. And doing what you just did and writing down your belief it is a utilitarian fantasy.
Personally I would argue that while you may be able to take some comfort from fantasy you can take greater and far more consistent comfort from reality.
For example imagine the bereaved family whose child was an atheist. What must that feel like. I personally would wish to go to hell with my child.
Of course I would never say that directly without tact to a bereaved family.

[Dark Matter]

In the off-chance anyone is interested, there's a book, The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief, that deals with the very topic of this thread.

I have made some comments in an earlier post that one need to consider counter views to the above and not just take it hook, line and sinker.

Here is another interesting counter to the above which is related to the OP;
https://www.amazon.com/Illusion-Gods-Pr ... 1633880745

The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing
John C. Wathey

Here is one comment from Amazon:

This is the most engaging and thought-provoking book on religious belief I’ve read in a long time – maybe ever. The author eschews the usual New Atheist rants, and instead cuts to the heart of religion’s appeal: the strong emotional pull of belief and its promise to fill what has been called “the God-shaped vacuum in our hearts and minds.” As the author notes in his preface, the New Atheists have “largely ignored the real reason that most believers believe: their personal experience of the presence of God.”
This book examines that subjective religious experience, offering a cogent description of its likely biological and psychological underpinnings.

Ably sorting through a wide array of evidence from neuroscience to Sunday sermons, the author builds a strong case for belief as an outgrowth of human biology and social organization. He also explains a familiar (yet baffling) aspect of religion: Why is God often perceived as judgmental and wrathful, while also being described as infinitely loving? As the author makes clear, these two views of God spring from different aspects of human experience (what he calls respectively the “social” and “neonatal” roots).

The book treats religious belief with respect (even affection), while at the same time fully recognizing its dangers. The author’s description of an encounter with a survivor of the Jim Jones “Peoples Temple” cult offers a particularly chilling warning about how easily religious charlatans can prey on the emotions of vulnerable believers.

Atheists and believers alike will find this book fascinating and enlightening. But I think it’s especially valuable for nonbelievers (like me). Atheists can scoff all we want about “imaginary friends,” but until we understand the deep emotional basis of belief, we’ll mostly be talking to a wall of denial.

Whilst I agree to the points raised by the author, I believe those reasons are merely proximate causes and not the ultimate cause in relation to the deep emotional basis of belief.

Is you name Darrel W. Ray by any chance?

[Jklint]

Proof replaces the impossibility of believe for those unwilling to accept subjective responsibility for their actions.

I'd like to see anyone try to join the two ends of this assertion together and what it's got to do with subjective responsibility.

[Spectrum]

I think that belief in God occurs for many different reasons. As such I don't think that there's a single proximate or root cause as Spectrum stipulates.

If we were to take a large sample of people and ask them why they believe in God, I think we would find a plethora of different reasons for why they believe as they do. So given that would be the most likely scenario, I think it may be presumptuous to conclude that there is one single proximate cause for religious belief.

I am claiming there is an ultimate cause that manifest in many proximate causes and many forms of diversified causes.

I believe if you were to ask ALL theists why they believe in God, there will be a variety of reasons and there will be a few main reasons contributing to say 80% and the rest 20%.
One of the critical main reason is the fear/anxiety & angst of what will happen to them after death and that God is able to promise them eternal life in heaven if they believe in God, his messenger and his message. The ultimate reason why people believe in God is centered within this reason. The main reason can be verified to the Bible, Quran, Torah and other theistic holy books where believers are reminded of death and the threat of Hell if they do not believe in God.

I understand that there is depth to the human psyche and that there may be underlying causes for religious belief that are subconscious, but I don't think its possible to isolate a single cause, given the complex nature of the human psyche. I just don't think that our current knowledge allows us to reach that conclusion. If someone claims that they believe in God, because they believe that the Biblical account of Jesus is true, in the case of a study, what grounds are there to claim that is not the proximate cause of their belief? What I mean is, should we dismiss what someone claims is the reason for their belief in favour of what we think is the cause of their belief? Would that be reasonable or justifiable?

For every reasons given by theists why they believe in a God, if we dig deep into the psyche, we will get to the ultimate cause, i.e. the existential crisis. It is not what I think is the ultimate and proximate causes, obviously the reason must be justified thoroughly [ I have details but too complex to get into here].

With regards to the question of whether belief in God is reasonable, my position is, I'm not sure. I don't think that its reasonable to believe in something without evidence, something that we cannot prove exists, but people who believe in God have faith in something that is claimed to exist. So there's a difference in believing in something like a pink unicorn, as it is not claimed that pink unicorns exist, there's no framework or consensus supporting the existence of pink unicorns and no accounts of people encountering them. The same cannot be said of God or religion, as there are many accounts of people having religious experiences or encountering God. Whilst those accounts (or the religious frameworks) don't constitute proof that God exists, I find it difficult to dismiss every single religious claim or experience as nonsense, because some of them may have some validity - not necessarily that God exists, but that there may be more to reality than can be measured empirically, although I don't know what that "more" may be. That said, I don't think that there's anything which validates belief in God, but the belief may be held for reasons which are anecdotally justifiable.

I believe it is empirically possible [not impossible] for a pink unicorn to exist on Earth yet to be discovered or somewhere in the Universe albeit the probability is very slim.

I have demonstrated why God is only possible as a thought supported by brain activities but God is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

The only reason why theists believe in God is purely psychological based on the ultimate, proximate and other psychological causes I mentioned above.

All religious experiences of 'God' are real experiences [unless someone deliberate lie] in the brain but they all are supported [with evidence] by various psychological, medical and other reasons.

If there is any "more" reality to experiences of God, it must be possible to be verified with an empirical-rational reality.
You tell me, other than an empirical-rational reality and the mental world, what other mode of reality can we justify the existence of anything?

[Spectrum]

The Quran literally claim to be perfect, complete and immutable.
No one can change God's words.

I'm sorry you can't have it both ways.
If the Quran is immutable and the word of God then we should all be Muslims.

Yes God did assert his words in the Quran are immutable, i.e. cannot be changed.
The God in the Quran stated all humans are born Muslims but some rebelled and they must revert to be Muslims or else they will go to HELL.

If not then it's a book like all other books and open to revision and reinterpretation like all other books. The thing is you can read the Quran and then form any interpretation you like. As proof of this I present the Bible (also the claimed immutable word of God) and the vast differences of opinion across Christianity (both historically and currently). The Muslim faith is the same, they too have vast differences of opinion on interpretation.

The Quran stipulated very specifically God's words cannot be changed.
I don't think the Bible insisted the words transmitted in the Bible are immutable, but the message is immutable.

Note the two are separate matters;
1. God commanded his words in the Quran are immutable.
2. There are many interpretations [sects and schools] of the Quran.

Muslims claim the current Quran as it is was handed down from God to Muhammad via angel Gabriel and the Arabic words has not been changed since to the the present. [this is debatable].

In this case no Muslims can change and revise the Arabic words in the Quran.

There are many sects and schools. Whatever the accepted interpretations of the Quran by each sect or schools, they cannot be changed nor revised.

As for other unreasonable beliefs one need to take them case by case to understand the root causes.

A case by case approach to educating against unreasonable beliefs seems like a losing battle me. You could never hope to keep up with the new unreasonable beliefs. I would say it was better to take a general approach with specific cases for illumination.

For example you have an unreasonable belief that anyone who is a theist is a theist for one reason and that you could some how prove a foolproof way to assuage that one reason and then everyone would stop being a theist. You seem to be ignoring that the main reason the average person goes to Church is because most everyone else (they identify with) goes to Church and that there are thousands of other reasons people go to church (existential crises merely being one reason).

I mean if you pointed to a random person in a church and asked me why they are in church and what they believe I wouldn't have a clue (and it seems ridiculous to claim that you do). I wouldn't even be more than 50% sure they even believed in God in the first place and weren't just there because they liked it.

As I had claimed, the core fundamental reason why theists believe in God is centered on the existential crisis [subliminal thus not conscious of it].
Theists will give all sorts of reason why they believe in a God and these reasons will be based on what they can expressed consciously but they are unable to know the deeper reason at the unconscious level.
There are many research in this area to demonstrate how unconscious activities effect one's decision in life. Example;

While we are fully aware of what is going on in the conscious mind, we have no idea of what information is stored in the unconscious mind.

The unconscious contains all sorts of significant and disturbing material which we need to keep out of awareness because they are too threatening to acknowledge fully.

The unconscious mind acts as a repository, a ‘cauldron’ of primitive wishes and impulse kept at bay and mediated by the preconscious area. For example, Freud (1915) found that some events and desires were often too frightening or painful for his patients to acknowledge, and believed such information was locked away in the unconscious mind. This can happen through the process of repression.

The unconscious mind contains our biologically based instincts (eros and thanatos) for the primitive urges for sex and aggression (Freud, 1915). Freud argued that our primitive urges often do not reach consciousness because they are unacceptable to our rational, conscious selves. People has developed a range of defence mechanisms (such as repression) to avoid knowing what their unconscious motives and feelings are.

Freud (1915) emphasized the importance of the unconscious mind, and a primary assumption of Freudian theory is that the unconscious mind governs behavior to a greater degree than people suspect. Indeed, the goal of psychoanalysis is to reveal the use of such defence mechanisms and thus make the unconscious conscious.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/unconscious-mind.html

Elsewhere Antonio Damasio has researched into how emotions and feeling do effect 'logical' decisions.

The point is we must dig deeper into the human psyche and based on your views in this case you do not appear to have done so.

[Dark Matter]

On a more serious note, the question “why believe in a God when it is impossible to prove” obviates the whole philosophical endeavor in one fell swoop.

[Spectrum]

It doesn't follow they all agree its meaning or application.

To save Spectrum's, and everyone else's, time, I should say that the next step is that Spectrum will insist he know's God's will as expressed in the Koran better than any Muslim, so that Muslims who do not conform to his stereotype are not true Muslims.

I'll repeat the following;

The Quran stipulated very specifically God's words cannot be changed.
Muslims claim the current Quran as it is was handed down from God to Muhammad via angel Gabriel and the Arabic words has not been changed since to the the present. [this is debatable].
In this case no Muslims can change and revise the Arabic words in the Quran.

Note these two are separate matters;

• 1. God commanded his words in the Quran are immutable.
  2. There are many interpretations [sects and schools] of the Quran.

There are many sects and schools. Muslims claim the current Quran as it is was handed down from God to Muhammad via angel Gabriel and the Arabic words has not been changed since to the the present. [this is debatable].

In this case no Muslims can change and revise the Arabic words in the Quran. Whatever the accepted interpretations of the Quran by each sect or school, in according to their rules, they cannot be changed nor revised.

To save Spectrum's, and everyone else's, time, I should say that the next step is that Spectrum will insist he know's God's will as expressed in the Koran better than any Muslim, so that Muslims who do not conform to his stereotype are not true Muslims.

I have spent a long time researching the Quran and coupled with my philosophical background I dare to claim I understand God's intention in the Quran better than 95% of the 1.5 billion Muslims [most are sheep-liked and do not think for themselves] around the world.

The Quran as a book of statements expressed a certain theme of intentions and there is only one true intention of the author[s]. Those Muslims who do not align with the main theme and intentions of the Quran are not true Muslims.

As mentioned above the Quran [the present one is exactly the original] is supposed to be immutable. But there are many interpretations and applications. Each sect, school or individual will believe their is the true interpretation.

But what is critical is no one has the authority other than Allah to decide whose interpretation is the true one.
But God is illusory and an impossibility and there is no way a God will appear to decide the truth on Earth.
So each sect, school or individual will continue to believe their interpretation is 100% true and act upon it.

Now, since there is no central authority and God will NEVER appear to decide, which human on Earth can insist those Muslims who accept the evil laden elements as true are FALSE MUSLIMs.

Based on my research, I noted and agree [verified] the Quran contains loads of evil laden elements and many [if 20% that is 300 million!!! ] Muslims accept these evil laden elements as words of God and they literally act upon it as a divine duty to please God.

Those evil prone Muslims who acted upon the words of God as a divine duty to commit terrible evil acts are truer [in greater degrees] Muslims because they comply with the words of God literally as commanded. Who on Earth can decide otherwise? Because such is believed to be a divine duty to gain assurance of an eternal life and avoid going to Hell, such evil beliefs will continue eternally.

This is one serious and critical malignant cons [negative and evil] arising out of theism where no one can act on behalf of God to decide who is right or wrong. There is no way to remove this dilemma except to replace theism with foolproof alternatives to deal with the same inherent unvoidable existential crisis.

[Spectrum]

None of that makes a god true, of course, but there is a certain utility in believing. And if people choose to believe because it gives them comfort, who am I to tell them that they're believing in a fantasy?

Note my signature below.
Given the current average psychological state of the masses, theism and religions are a critical necessity for them at present.

But the above is a compromised position at a cost, and theism in general is only acceptable at the present because the psychological pros outweigh all other cons.

You have to consider humanity as a whole and not on the individual[s] basis.
The cost from theism in general as whole is the terrible evils and violence from SOME theistic religions [especially Islam and some from Christianity and others] and committed by SOME* evil prone believers. This SOME is a critical quantum, e.g. 20% of Muslim is a pool of 300 million potential evil prone believers ready to be triggered by evil laden elements within the holy texts.

At the present the cons are tilting with a trend of outweighing its pros towards the future.
It is this point that humanity must strive to understand the root causes of theistic-evils* and find solutions to deal with it. As a concerned citizen of humanity, this is what I have been doing.
* other non-theistic evils must be dealt with but not in this section.

[Spectrum]

On a more serious note, the question “why believe in a God when it is impossible to prove” obviates the whole philosophical endeavor in one fell swoop.

Your usual one-liner. What serious note?
Just present your justified arguments.