Q from an atheist: "Why do you believe?"

[DetlefK]

I never really understood the concept of believe. Instead of pondering gods and religion from without, let's tackle the problem from within the realm of spirituality:


1. Why do you believe?

2. Why do you believe specifically that what you believe?

3. What would it take to convince you that your religion is wrong and another religion is right?

[madamesilverspurs]

1. Briefly:

1. We credit as genius those who invent devices or processes; I cannot believe that the very complex everything-that-exists is the result of mere accident; nothing comes from nothing.

2. Familiarity and experience.

3. I don't have a religion per se. Religion is not necessary to live spiritually. My spirituality is not contained nor restrained by human understanding; rather, I celebrate the existence of wonders whose workings I cannot begin to comprehend.

[Chaco Dundee]

2. old news

I don't believe in fairytales .that cancels out#
2 and 3.but I do believe what can be established as fact by mathematical back up.

[pinto]

3. I love this forum. It's been a part of a look at how I involve myself in religious practices.

And how religious tradition informs my life.

1. I don't believe, per se. I grew up in an Irish / Catholic tradition. Much of my connection to the church is cultural. That's why I recognize its place in my life. I believe in the examples of the life of Jesus as a teacher. Whether fictional or historical or some blend of both, they resonate. Each vignette has a message. I found them a clear humanistic standard set in an ancient theological framework. Oh, and I love the ceremonial play held every Sunday. The format is the last supper among the twelve, thirteen?, before Jesus gets executed.

2. I specifically recognize the way religious tradition influences my life. I can't say why. Except that perhaps I see some of myself in the traditions, the lessons, the stories.

3. I'm not interested in that dichotomy.

[rug]

4. 1. Because it makes sense.

The natural world, by its own terms, cannot be explained naturally.

Nonbelief requires a basic acceptance of two things: 1) look around, there's nothing else, and 2) we can only accept what little of it we know or may know. I have no idea why people would bind their minds like that to the exclusion of any other consideration..

If either of those premises were proven or had evidence to support those ultimate conclusions, it would be another story. But instead, the logic goes: since there is no evidence of anything beyond what we see or will see (which is precious little), therefore, nothing else can be accepted - regardless of whether it indeed exists.

Details will be filled in but that is all that it comes down to. It's essentially a stance for the incurious.

2. Because it's what I've learned and studied the most and because it has remained internally coherent.

3. Since as a Christian Catholic I believe a) there is an infinitely loving God who created all as an expression of that Love and b) that God became human as well to be directly and intimately with us, I would need to believe that God is instead a distant, unapproachable God. That imo would change the nature of God to something that is not God. It would be more akin to science fiction.

BTW, most religions share core concepts so the question is too binary to be very useful.

[DetlefK]

5. Concerning 1.

So you are unwilling to restrict your image of the world to only those things you can see and you widen it with images of things you can't see.
But how do you know which speculation about the "beyond" you should pick to flesh out your image of the world?

A single God?
Several gods?
No gods, just some djinni?
Nothing supernatural?

[rug]

6. You don't.

What I try to do is seek the internal consistency and coherence of the beliefs. Reason plays a very important role. The inquiry starts with a datum, a datum which is itself unproveable. That is the starting point at which I think there are no answers, material or otherwise. But, considering that assumption, that there may be an infinite, unknowable and extra-natural god, I'm willing to follow the implications, bearing in mind that the original premise is perforce an act of faith. I find that more intellectually vigorous than the alternative of we don't know yet or may never know. The cosmic shrug.

That notion of god is necessarily monotheistic. Several gods, each different from each other and thereby limited, would not meet the criterion of an infinite god. BTW, Hinduism itself has a school of thought that its various gods and goddesses are but different aspects of a single godhead.