What is the cause of peoples apparant need to believe?

[Passacaglia]

I often wonder the same thing about people who are certain that a god does not exist.

I don't speak for all atheists, but I can talk a bit about my perspective. As a bit of background, I grew up in a non-religious household. My father is an atheist, and my mother is spiritual. I myself am an atheist, though recently I’ve sent a few prayers to a God who I’d like to believe in. You can make of that what you will.

So why do I need to not believe? I don’t; not believing is simply my default position when it comes to the supernatural. If you tell me that there are unicorns secretly roaming around our forests, I’ll say ‘No there aren’t.’ If you tell me that Zeus is ruling creation from atop Mount Olympus, I’ll tell you ‘There is no Zeus.’ If you tell me that we’re all in the Matrix, waiting to be freed by Neo, I’ll tell you ’No we’re not.' If you tell me that the God of Abraham created the universe and all that jazz, I’ll tell you ’No.’

Not because I’m sure that there’s absolutely nothing spiritual in the universe; in fact ‘There’s something more to this universe’ is a perfectly defensible position. But claims as to the nature and number of these possible somethings become increasingly unlikely the more numerous and specific those claims get. To the point where the very mythology of any religion brings that religion’s likelihood of literal truth-hood down to virtually zero. In the case of some religions, the very traits ascribed to the supernatural are logically contradictory, and so bring that likelihood down to exactly zero.

If you want to know why I argue against religion online (I don’t argue in person), that’s a whole other discussion. (I’d be happy to have it though.)

 

[FemMecha]

I've wondered about this and I think that beliefs are a way to create cohesion socially. In early tribal culture, a tribe would create and share a set of beliefs that bonded the group together as one. It is a way to create shared perception of reality amongst a group of people which stabilizes that group as one entity.

Combine this with the fact that humans have a complicated intelligence and perception of reality. It is as though we are intelligent enough to wonder, but not intelligent enough to really know. Fear of the unknown is an instinctual trait that we possess that tends to be beneficial throughout our history, and so perhaps the tendency to need certitude without accuracy is a collateral damage effect of this instinctual fear?

I suspect the need for certitude without accuracy is a by-product of coping strategies for humans to survive over the long history of our development.

 

[yasin]

God is able to do ANYTHING, is it logically incorrect?

If god is able to do ANYTHING

----------------------------------------is god able to make a stone he himself is unable to move------------------------------------------------------

able≠unable

Now, believers believe the following:

god is able to do anything

→god is able to be able to do anything (same as the previous line)

→god is NOT able to be UNABLE to do anything (able≠unable)

But making a stone which god himself is not able to move, will make god able to be unable to do anything

but we proved already that god is not able to be unable to do anything

→god is not able to make a stone which he is unable to move

This is what you logically get, if you suppose god is able to do anything. If god is able to do anything, he cannot LOGICALLY make a stone he cannot move himself. Every stone is below his limit.

So, god is able to do ANYTHING, it is LOGICALLY CORRECT and FLAWLESS.

INTPs, give feedbacks/counterarguments!

 

[Tennessee Jed]

May or may not be relevant to the discussion at hand.
Link: Dinosaur Comics - January 31st, 2013 - awesome fun times!

 

[Also]

How do you apply this personally in terms of your religion? How you define "absolute truth" in this situation?

Likewise, I was never pressured by my family to be religious or not and came to my own opinion to be an Atheist. I still haven't read a Richard Dawkins book or feel I have to do things his way either...

I don't define absolute truth differently depending on the situation. I believe that there is an inflexible reality and that is the lens in which I see the world.

I don't speak for all atheists, but I can talk a bit about my perspective. As a bit of background, I grew up in a non-religious household. My father is an atheist, and my mother is spiritual. I myself am an atheist, though recently I’ve sent a few prayers to a God who I’d like to believe in. You can make of that what you will.

So why do I need to not believe? I don’t; not believing is simply my default position when it comes to the supernatural. If you tell me that there are unicorns secretly roaming around our forests, I’ll say ‘No there aren’t.’ If you tell me that Zeus is ruling creation from atop Mount Olympus, I’ll tell you ‘There is no Zeus.’ If you tell me that we’re all in the Matrix, waiting to be freed by Neo, I’ll tell you ’No we’re not.' If you tell me that the God of Abraham created the universe and all that jazz, I’ll tell you ’No.’

Not because I’m sure that there’s absolutely nothing spiritual in the universe; in fact ‘There’s something more to this universe’ is a perfectly defensible position. But claims as to the nature and number of these possible somethings become increasingly unlikely the more numerous and specific those claims get. To the point where the very mythology of any religion brings that religion’s likelihood of literal truth-hood down to virtually zero. In the case of some religions, the very traits ascribed to the supernatural are logically contradictory, and so bring that likelihood down to exactly zero.

If you want to know why I argue against religion online (I don’t argue in person), that’s a whole other discussion. (I’d be happy to have it though.)

Thanks for sharing your perspective and thank you for inviting me to ask you questions.

First, your position doesn't sound exactly like atheism to me, especially the third paragraph? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Second, I can see why someone who chooses not to believe would argue against religion. This is not an issue of my misunderstanding a) lack of belief or b) the strong stance atheists can take when it comes to religious practice. I think you should be free to not believe and free to be vocal about it. Conflict is great, we should have more of it.

My issue goes back to the first post I made in this thread. It is the certainty and the assumed authority, that by logic and science, an atheist could feel intellectually superior to a believer. And this is done by painting an image of foolishness on those who believe in God all the while making a mockery of science as whole by asking for empirical evidence or using the lack of as some profound revelation of truth when it comes to the immaterial.

In fact, I find that people who often hold that opinion tend to be very, very biased and deluded, hence "the need to not believe". Too often we throw around the idea that believers are indoctrinated when in reality our society in terms of education is secular. We are raised on secularism. We like to believe that we are objectively rejecting and accepting arguments, but really, how many people who don't believe in a higher power can say that they have investigated religion? So far, no one has said it in this thread. The only person who claims to have done so has copy/pasted verses from a book that he/she failed to read or understand. Piggy-backing off of someone else's work. How many people of faith can say that they have entertained the opposing view? Based on my experience, not many. This idea of objectivity is a sham if you haven't done the work.

I meant what I said the first time, and this argument that I had with EcK stayed true to my claim. These types of discussions usually devolve into emotional appeal for a moral code that has no basis. I'm not interested in discussing the feels of the masses. So if your reason for arguing with religious people online is not founded in emotional appeal, then I would be happy to hear it. Unless you are able to defend your sense of morality, you are welcomed to introduce a variety of reasons, emotionally charged ones as well.

Apologies for my late response.

 

[Passacaglia]

Apologies for my late response.

No apology necessary; we all have lives outside of TypeC!

Thanks for sharing your perspective and thank you for inviting me to ask you questions.

First, your position doesn't sound exactly like atheism to me, especially the third paragraph? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Second, I can see why someone who chooses not to believe would argue against religion. This is not an issue of my misunderstanding a) lack of belief or b) the strong stance atheists can take when it comes to religious practice. I think you should be free to not believe and free to be vocal about it. Conflict is great, we should have more of it.

Haha, I like to joke that "I'm an atheist or an agnostic depending on the day of the week." But that's a commentary on my mercurial attitude toward organized religion, rather than my opinions, which don't shift quite that frequently. I used to be more of a hardline atheist, but I've learned that the supernatural is a bottomless rabbit hole. Religion and spirituality can be argued around and around in circles, and still not definitively disproven.

My issue goes back to the first post I made in this thread. It is the certainty and the assumed authority, that by logic and science, an atheist could feel intellectually superior to a believer. And this is done by painting an image of foolishness on those who believe in God all the while making a mockery of science as whole by asking for empirical evidence or using the lack of as some profound revelation of truth when it comes to the immaterial.

Admittedly, there is an element of superiority to my non-belief. I've never had faith, and everything I've learned points toward non-belief being the most reasonable stance. Every debate I've witnessed or been a part of has demonstrated that non-belief is the most defensible position. I remember telling a religious grade school friend that "Religion is a crutch." (It's amazing that he remained friends with me after that!) I'm mild-mannered when it comes to just about everything else in life, often to a fault, but when it comes to religion I can be a huge dick.

I find it very difficult to not make blunt statements or ask pointed questions when I see assumptions, half-truths, glib but meaningless adages, double standards, and outright contradictions being spouted, apparently without any self-awareness. (As has already happened several times in this thread. *twitch*) As Hard mentioned, many believers have an entirely different set of standards when it comes to religion -- specifically, their own religion.

Which I think is where the superiority comes from. From my PoV, religion -- and spirituality, to a lesser degree -- is so self-evidently improbable. Living in this world, surrounded by people with varying degrees and types of faith, is like...if you can imagine an alternate Earth where everyone is a fan of one science fiction story or other. Some of them love their favorite so much that they're believers. The Trekkies believe that the vulcans are out there and that we'll form the Federation shortly after encountering them, the Matrix people believe that we're all jacked into the Matrix to power the machines, the Star Wars fans believe in the Force and in a galaxy with humans that is somehow far far away and long ago, and so on. Sure, you can't definitively disprove any of these...but how seriously would you take any one of them?

This isn't to say that my attitudes toward organized religion is wholly driven by whatever superiority complex I may have. History has proven that religion is dangerous, whatever else it is, and I'm not at all convinced that religion does more good than harm. Pragmatically, I'm not sure that a humanity without religion is possible, but I do absolutely believe that we'd all be better off with more self-aware belief. I.e., "Religion is something I practice because it's part of my culture, it gives me comfort, it provides community, etc.." I also firmly believe that we need the separation of church and state clearly and in no uncertain terms written into our fundamental societal manifestos. I'm not sure about other countries, but here in the U.S. we have nutcases who believe that civil servants are ministers of God, we have religious individuals blatantly abusing tax-exemptions at the expense of their communities, and we have people believing that long-standing religions deserve special treatment. Even when religion isn't being used to oppress or kill people, it has a habit of undermining our most important social values.

In fact, I find that people who often hold that opinion tend to be very, very biased and deluded, hence "the need to not believe". Too often we throw around the idea that believers are indoctrinated when in reality our society in terms of education is secular. We are raised on secularism. We like to believe that we are objectively rejecting and accepting arguments, but really, how many people who don't believe in a higher power can say that they have investigated religion? So far, no one has said it in this thread. The only person who claims to have done so has copy/pasted verses from a book that he/she failed to read or understand. Piggy-backing off of someone else's work. How many people of faith can say that they have entertained the opposing view? Based on my experience, not many. This idea of objectivity is a sham if you haven't done the work.

To a point, I agree. Being able to entertain opposing views is a valuable and important skill. (I believe [MENTION=21639]Kullervo[/MENTION] used to have a signature to this effect.) The question is: How long need they be entertained before one can reasonably judge them? When it comes to spirituality and religion, there are an infinity of possibilities and nothing is certain, so how certain do you need to be to make a decision? (You can treat these as rhetorical or real questions, as you choose.)

Everyone except agnostics do make a decision, whether conscious or not, so this is an interesting question. Personally, I grew up loving classical mythology; unicorns, the Trojan War, divine pharoahs, greek gods, and so on. But I didn't find them convincing as belief-systems. (Later I learned that classical cultures didn't think of religion the way that we in the modern western world tend to.) Growing up, my family celebrated Hanukah and Passover as well as Christmas and Easter, so I learned a bit about Moses and Elijah. But none of it really stuck with me. In school, I wrote a paper on Buddhism; it was interesting, but it doesn't strike me as Truth. (Though again, I don't think that people in the east think of religion the same way we do in the west.) I grew up in a very Christian area and ended up reading the first gospel, but again, I didn't find any of it compelling as Truth. I love fantasy and I have an active imagination, so I've considered the infinity of possible religions that may yet be. Some of them I'd like to believe in, but I can't think of one that's much more likely than the current pickings. In my last semester in school, I took a class called Faith and Reason, and among other things studied the three big arguments for God. I loved discussing them, and even included them in my final paper, but ultimately they're a bottomless rabbit hole which can at most conclude in a non-specific supernatural entity. Even Emmanuel Kant, the eminently Christian philosopher, recognized this fact.

So given that truly perfect objectivity is impossible, due to the impossibility of fully investigating each and every one of infinite supernatural possibilities...do I have enough objectivity to make a judgment? I think I do.

 

[Also]

Haha, I like to joke that "I'm an atheist or an agnostic depending on the day of the week." But that's a commentary on my mercurial attitude toward organized religion, rather than my opinions, which don't shift quite that frequently. I used to be more of a hardline atheist, but I've learned that the supernatural is a bottomless rabbit hole. Religion and spirituality can be argued around and around in circles, and still not definitively disproven.

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying .

Admittedly, there is an element of superiority to my non-belief. I've never had faith, and everything I've learned points toward non-belief being the most reasonable stance. Every debate I've witnessed or been a part of has demonstrated that non-belief is the most defensible position. I remember telling a religious grade school friend that "Religion is a crutch." (It's amazing that he remained friends with me after that!) I'm mild-mannered when it comes to just about everything else in life, often to a fault, but when it comes to religion I can be a huge dick.

I find it very difficult to not make blunt statements or ask pointed questions when I see assumptions, half-truths, glib but meaningless adages, double standards, and outright contradictions being spouted, apparently without any self-awareness. (As has already happened several times in this thread. *twitch*) As Hard mentioned, many believers have an entirely different set of standards when it comes to religion -- specifically, their own religion.

Which I think is where the superiority comes from. From my PoV, religion -- and spirituality, to a lesser degree -- is so self-evidently improbable. Living in this world, surrounded by people with varying degrees and types of faith, is like...if you can imagine an alternate Earth where everyone is a fan of one science fiction story or other. Some of them love their favorite so much that they're believers. The Trekkies believe that the vulcans are out there and that we'll form the Federation shortly after encountering them, the Matrix people believe that we're all jacked into the Matrix to power the machines, the Star Wars fans believe in the Force and in a galaxy with humans that is somehow far far away and long ago, and so on. Sure, you can't definitively disprove any of these...but how seriously would you take any one of them?

This isn't to say that my attitudes toward organized religion is wholly driven by whatever superiority complex I may have. History has proven that religion is dangerous, whatever else it is, and I'm not at all convinced that religion does more good than harm. Pragmatically, I'm not sure that a humanity without religion is possible, but I do absolutely believe that we'd all be better off with more self-aware belief. I.e., "Religion is something I practice because it's part of my culture, it gives me comfort, it provides community, etc.." I also firmly believe that we need the separation of church and state clearly and in no uncertain terms written into our fundamental societal manifestos. I'm not sure about other countries, but here in the U.S. we have nutcases who believe that civil servants are ministers of God, we have religious individuals blatantly abusing tax-exemptions at the expense of their communities, and we have people believing that long-standing religions deserve special treatment. Even when religion isn't being used to oppress or kill people, it has a habit of undermining our most important social values.

I have noticed that atheists are more than willing to make ad hominem attacks when it comes to religious people. It’s nice to see who is capable of coexisting with people who differ from them and who cannot. Saves a lot of time.

The example that you gave is off but I understand that’s how you view it. Regarding the question, it’s not even comparable.

History has proven that many things are dangerous, yet here we are, living in similar conditions. I also agree about your point on self-awareness, but it goes both ways. It’s my desire that both sides become more self-aware and more informed but the likelihood that your average atheist keyboard warrior is well versed in the Quran and the Bible is very low. I agree that we as people tend to hold our beliefs to a different standard. This is why we often encounter people who are poorly informed but vocal about issues they hardly understand. You see it in politics, education, issues regarding race, faith and more. I just thought of a thread that I commented on a while ago. It was about evangelism, why people choose to evangelize and how people on the receiving end felt about it. It was odd to me that people cite Buddhism and Hinduism as religions that don't evangelize, but they did and they used it as a means to disparage the religions that encouraged spreading their message. A quick google search might lead you to some reasons why certain religions, namely eastern religions, differ from the ones we are more exposed to. But still, people chose to be vocal about what they do not know.

We have a history with History. She has a habit of showing us what is and we tend to interpret that in many ways. What was changes depending on the generation and values in place. What was wrong yesterday is right today and will be wrong tomorrow only to become accepted again the next day. We should be careful with history, people tend to abuse her in order to get the outcome they desire.

The three examples that you gave aren’t unique to religion. Most groups see themselves as worthy of special treatment and people expect the type of "justice" outlined in the blog(?) you linked, the reasons may differ but the outcome is the same: for civil servants to act in the way they see fit. As far as DiscoBiscuit’s comment, is it my place to dictate who should and shouldn’t be allowed to stand by their values and whether these values are unworthy of being upheld because special treatment is not okay?

We do often elevate ourselves to a place of judgement but the foundation on which we stand is often very shaky. If we were to push people who opposed special treatment to explain why these actions are bad, we would end up going in circles. To be quite honest, I don’t place much value on statements on the morality of X or Y when the moral code itself can be defined as “it's oppression or certain groups are set apart”. If you can explain why this is bad then I could begin to analyze your point but until then, all I have is that this doesn’t feel good to you.

Which brings me to my next point. Social values are subject to change. This world isn’t perfect and as long as mankind has had the ability to think and form an opinion, they have been undermining one another. People are never satisfied. One group has to take a hit in order for another group to be elevated in this little world we live in. Religion is a convenient excuse but again, the basis for this being wrong or bad is missing. Maybe the reason why it's left out is a matter of convenience as well.

To a point, I agree. Being able to entertain opposing views is a valuable and important skill. (I believe [MENTION=21639]Kullervo[/MENTION] used to have a signature to this effect.) The question is: How long need they be entertained before one can reasonably judge them? When it comes to spirituality and religion, there are an infinity of possibilities and nothing is certain, so how certain do you need to be to make a decision? (You can treat these as rhetorical or real questions, as you choose.)

Everyone except agnostics do make a decision, whether conscious or not, so this is an interesting question. Personally, I grew up loving classical mythology; unicorns, the Trojan War, divine pharoahs, greek gods, and so on. But I didn't find them convincing as belief-systems. (Later I learned that classical cultures didn't think of religion the way that we in the modern western world tend to.) Growing up, my family celebrated Hanukah and Passover as well as Christmas and Easter, so I learned a bit about Moses and Elijah. But none of it really stuck with me. In school, I wrote a paper on Buddhism; it was interesting, but it doesn't strike me as Truth. (Though again, I don't think that people in the east think of religion the same way we do in the west.) I grew up in a very Christian area and ended up reading the first gospel, but again, I didn't find any of it compelling as Truth. I love fantasy and I have an active imagination, so I've considered the infinity of possible religions that may yet be. Some of them I'd like to believe in, but I can't think of one that's much more likely than the current pickings. In my last semester in school, I took a class called Faith and Reason, and among other things studied the three big arguments for God. I loved discussing them, and even included them in my final paper, but ultimately they're a bottomless rabbit hole which can at most conclude in a non-specific supernatural entity. Even Emmanuel Kant, the eminently Christian philosopher, recognized this fact.

So given that truly perfect objectivity is impossible, due to the impossibility of fully investigating each and every one of infinite supernatural possibilities...do I have enough objectivity to make a judgment? I think I do.

Good science does change as more data is collected. But the fact that it changes at all leaves room for uncertainty and a large amount of possibility even for well known and accepted theories. So while some avenues of science will try to explain away our existence to only suffer a set back or a massive alteration 20-30 years down the line, we are still left holding a bag of uncertainty and unexplored possibility.

Possibility is inescapable. We deal with it whether we like it or not, whether it's logical or not. The divide should not be between those who believe in God and those who don't. We should be judging the method in which we arrived at our conclusions, if we have earned the right to arrive at them at all.

Still, I'll treat your questions rhetorically for now. I do hold the belief that humans love comfort and we often take the easy way out, especially in American culture. We are highly individualistic, almost wired to look out for number one at all times. But there are some of us who do not wish to plateau intellectually, or in any way really. Maybe you don't see your position as stagnation, someone might however, and that could explain a lot. I’m sure that there are many more positions out there and each one would have a different length of time, so I’ll get back to you when my thoughts are more solid. As of now, I’m inclined to say that the basics, which would be actually studying what you oppose as it is wise to know what you disagree with, is the absolute minimum of what should be done. The length of time doesn’t matter as much as the amount you're able to comprehend.

It is true that most of us have or will decide. I think people like to believe that there can be neutrality in these matters but I’m not sure if that is possible. It’s interesting to me that you think you do have enough objectivity to make a judgement. I guess the only thing left to do is to have an actual debate so until then, I'll give your questions some thought and keep a look out for the best time to bring this up. Thanks once again for sharing your perspective, I appreciate it.

 

[Passacaglia]

It is true that most of us have or will decide. I think people like to believe that there can be neutrality in these matters but I’m not sure if that is possible. It’s interesting to me that you think you do have enough objectivity to make a judgement. I guess the only thing left to do is to have an actual debate so until then, I'll give your questions some thought and keep a look out for the best time to bring this up. Thanks once again for sharing your perspective, I appreciate it.

Right back atcha. Feel free to drop me a PM if you don't find an appropriate opportunity to broach your thoughts publicly.