Why do you believe?

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Why do people believe in the existence of ‘god’ ? On in afterlife,
heaven/hell? And follow various religions that affect/govern their lives so as to appease this god bloke.

After several years of gradual and subconscious contemplation, I came toconclude that

  1. the existence/non-existence of “god” is inconsequential to me. The
    answer to the question, after taking stock of the universe and the world
    around me is that the ‘answer’ matters diddly-squat.

  2. As a skeptic, this conclusion suited me perfectly in my atheism and
    belief real-politik and Darwinism, which science in this enlightened age
    supports (IMHO of course).

  3. This gives me a freedom/choice of following my life, not blindly
    governed by dictates of men who existed (if at all) thousands of years
    ago.

I did have a bit of problem in the beginning, feeling contempt and pity for those who spent their lives ‘believing’ and surrendering to the
biggest mafia in the world (organised religion). Though a bit of the
superiority complex remains, I have learned to accept , since there is no
answer (and as a scientist, I have to acknowledge that the answer after
all may be ‘yes’), I have no right to feel the contempt that I once did.

But I have always wondered why those who believe in this age of science, do so…

chd

2

"But I have always wondered why those who believe in this age of science, do so..."

what has science done thus far that would negate the concept of God?

3

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
"But I have always wondered why those who believe in this age of science, do so..."

what has science done thus far that would negate the concept of God?
[/QUOTE]

The question still remains, why do you?

Ok, after 15th century onwards, science has been propelled by a simplistic axiom, the scientific method.(and thats just one way of looking at things)

Hypothesis: God exists.

Now I attack the hypothesis. with a simple question really. Why?

And whatever kooky reasons one comes up with, its easy to destroy the hypothesis. Otherwise there would be a universally accepted proof by now. Note: That does not disprove anything, but only destroys any proof one may come up with.

Result: Hypothesis not vindicated (yet, if at all).

Anyways, lets not get off topic.

The question remains: If you do believe, then why do you believe?

regards,
Chd

4

consider me, for the moment, to be that naive believer who has always believed.

consider that, for as long as we have history for, we have always believed.

if nothing else, we have a social, historical reason for believing.

given then, that your 'scientific' view (a lot of brilliant scientists were very religious people btw) is the new kid on the block. given also that since we have always been believing, and we have always believed, the onus is on you my friend, to tell me why i shouldnt.

so the question is: what scientific reasons do you have for dismissing God?

5

similarly, you cannot prove this hypothesis: God does not exist

6

given that science arrives at an impasse. science cannot address the questions i need to know about my world. give me one reason why i should abandon the accumulated knowledge of my civilisation. give me one reason why i should go from "i know" to "i dont know" simply because you dont know.

7

lets reason this logically (agents logic that is..since im a computer scientist), since you adhere to a scientific school of thought.

i have a set of agents who have a set of initial belief states. their belief state changes upon observation of a change in the state of the world. what observation do you have that would cause me to change my belief state?

8

believe me u r not the first to be thinking on this (very wrong) line....

what can science prove for u????
why r we born????
why do we die????
what is life????
what is death????
nothing at all....

9

note that in my above example, if i change my belief without any reason it would be illogical. and since we are basing our reasons on logic..

similarly you believe God does not exist.

can you prove that hypothesis? if you cant then its unscientific of you to believe there is no God.

10

Not(Believe(God)) is not equal to Believe(Not(God))

i think you grasp that when you phrased your posts..so I guess Im a bit off in my last post. Nevertheless, answer my other questions.

Give me a logical basis for changing my beliefs. I dont want to be illogical you know.

11

seemingly, the font of science runneth dry.

anyway. will be back in the morning to check if you came up with anything chandigarh

Allah hafiz..

12

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *

if nothing else, we have a social, historical reason for believing.

given then, that your 'scientific' view (a lot of brilliant scientists were very religious people btw) is the new kid on the block. given also that since we have always been believing, and we have always believed, the onus is on you my friend, to tell me why i shouldnt.

so the question is: what scientific reasons do you have for dismissing God?
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, was away from the desk.

No my friend. I am not asking you to come to my point of view. I consider my POV to be unique to my own experiences and analysis. I just wanted to know why people who do believe, do elieve.

Yes, I had concidered the social reason, and it is good enough for most people. It just that I have freed myself from that 'blind belief' cycle, for my own reasons and logic.

Seriously, is that the only reason why you believe?

As per the religious scientist argument

  1. I can point to the atheistic scientists, so that does not hold
  2. Freedom (ior Illusion thereof) of 'choice' gives us the right to be illogical/irrational. Its a very basic characteristic of our reason of existance after reaching this plane of thought (i.e we ain't dumb animals) This is what I determined from Camus and Dostoevsky, and for me, this explaination made immense sense.

Scientific reason for dismissing god:

Basic science dude. Hypothesis without proof ain't worth jack-shnit. But at the same time I did acknowledge that absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. :)

Well, I (speaking for myself here) had no reason to believe (for there isn't any proof) and came to the conslusion that this thesis does not clash with my "and the real answer matters nowt" hypothsis.

regards,
Chd

13

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
similarly, you cannot prove this hypothesis: God does not exist
[/QUOTE]

:) C'mon. The very fact that you are basing your argument on a negation of the original argument (beating me wth my own schtick, eh?)
invalidates stating of above hypothesis.

Its like saying. You cannot disprove existance of pink elephants, QED.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
given that science arrives at an impasse. science cannot address the questions i need to know about my world. give me one reason why i should abandon the accumulated knowledge of my civilisation. give me one reason why i should go from "i know" to "i dont know" simply because you dont know.
[/QUOTE]

Its called skeptisism old chap.
How did the "knowledge" accumuluate in the first place itself. When I probed myself with such questions, I took the logical (to me) answer, that most of the past such "knowledge" is bull. Though I have the choice of still following that coz as a human, I have the choice to be illogical/irrational.

You dont need the answer to dismiss the old asnwer as wrong/redundant/whut-have-U (My view)

Thats why.

Chd

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *

can you prove that hypothesis? if you cant then its unscientific of you to believe there is no God.
[/QUOTE]

Answered above. (But if you need clarifications, ask away)

16

[QUOTE]

Its called skeptisism old chap.
How did the "knowledge" accumuluate in the first place itself. When I probed myself with such questions, I took the logical (to me) answer, that most of the past such "knowledge" is bull. Though I have the choice of still following that coz as a human, I have the choice to be illogical/irrational.

[/QUOTE]

so this, is the only "scientific" reason you have.

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
Not(Believe(God)) is not equal to Believe(Not(God))

i think you grasp that when you phrased your posts..so I guess Im a bit off in my last post. Nevertheless, answer my other questions.

Give me a logical basis for changing my beliefs. I dont want to be illogical you know.
[/QUOTE]

Good, we understand each other. :)

No, I'm not trying to change your beliefs. What one believes is a deeply personal thing built up knowledge gained and experiences in life. For me atleast, when I learn something that explains to me in some part the these difficult issues, its one of those "Matrix enlightenment moments" (like the one I got reading Dostoevsky's "Notes from the Underground " as explained above somewhere).

All I wanted to know was "Why do those who believe, believe?"

If you say "historical and social reasons", then that is a perfectly fine explaination.

cheers,
Chd

18

do we really fight over god or ultimatly fight for land in the name of god?

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
seemingly, the font of science runneth dry.

anyway. will be back in the morning to check if you came up with anything chandigarh

Allah hafiz..
[/QUOTE]

Righto!

And will try to anwer all other questions in one post and not the several I have posted.

The question remains:

"Why do those who believe, believe?"

Chd

20

actually, my reasons arent historical or social.

i was arguing from a scientific perspective.

given that you have no scientific reasoning to offer, it does become a subjective matter, a personal matter of opinion.