The real poll: religion

[jim stone]

We don't choose most of our beliefs.
I don't choose to believe that I'm typing on a computer.
Given the evidence I believe.

I didn't choose to disbelieve. I beleived in God
and led a religious life. Doubts arose. The world
didn't look as it should if it were created by God.
Too much suffering and pain. More doubts arose.
The long ghastly evolutionary struggle didn't fit
an absolutely benevolent, all powerful, omnisciient
creator. Finally I disbelieved, but not because I
chose to. I disbelieve because what I've seen of life has
persuaded me that God's existence is improbable,
and because I'm not aware of good reasons
to think he exists. There is no leap of faith.

Many people are theists on faith, but
others believe because they have reasons that
compel beleif. I know a man who goes
climbing and sees God in nature. It is evident
to him that nature is God's creation. When he reads
the scriptures he feels that God is speaking to him.
He believes but he doesn't choose to believe;
there's no leap of faith.

[Easily_Deluded_Fool]

What I find interesting is that nobody has ticked the
"never thought about it" box.

[Marko]

ok Jim i agree. if i died, and was told "you were wrong, there really is an all powerful entity and all those who believed there was none will be sent to hell" i would have no apologys, i cant help what i believe (or dis-believe). a little backtracking from my previous post, but hell, i'm still tryin to figure myself out

[Sunnywindo]

We don't choose most of our beliefs.
I don't choose to believe that I'm typing on a computer.
Given the evidence I believe.

I didn't choose to disbelieve. I beleived in God
and led a religious life. Doubts arose. The world
didn't look as it should if it were created by God.
Too much suffering and pain. More doubts arose.
The long ghastly evolutionary struggle didn't fit
an absolutely benevolent, all powerful, omnisciient
creator. Finally I disbelieved, but not because I
chose to. I disbelieve because what I've seen of life has
persuaded me that God's existence is improbable,
and because I'm not aware of good reasons
to think he exists. There is no leap of faith.

Many people are theists on faith, but
others believe because they have reasons that
compel beleif. I know a man who goes
climbing and sees God in nature. It is evident
to him that nature is God's creation. When he reads
the scriptures he feels that God is speaking to him.
He believes but he doesn't choose to believe;
there's no leap of faith.

I still think it's a choice. One person looks at the world; it's history, it's beauty, it's ugliness, and yes even it's suffering and pain (the "evidence") and concludes there is no God. I can look at the same, yet I conclude there is a God. In both cases there is a thinking process involved, a conclusion is made... a choice. Bit by bit we choose what to believe and what not to believe... like "well I think this or I don't agree with that"... choices... the path we choose leading to not believeing in a God for some, and to belief in God for others. Two men grow up in a religous home and are basically taught the same thing. When grown one holds to God and the other leaves the church of his youth and after a while concludes there is no God. Choice. Granted, choice is greatly effected by past experience, but we still often choose how to react or interpret those experiences. One person gets very sick, terrible things happen but they consider their position and choose to exersise their faith that there is a higher purpose to their suffering and their faith is made stronger. Another person gets very sick and terrible things happen... they consider their positon, curse God, and never go to church again. Course, it can be a bit more complex than all that, the combination of faith, a persons experience and knowledge, etc.... but somewhere in all of it choice plays it's part, leading us along one path or another.

I have choosen to hold to my faith. I have had hard times where I could have rebelled, allowed the pain in my heart to turn me away from God. I was not active for a time, and pondered life's questions at length. I weighed what I had been taught against what I saw in the world, against a variety of beliefs out there. After a time, I concluded that there was a God, and that the teachings of the church of my birth were true and correct. I had some rather personal experiences which influenced me. I then chose to go back to church, to exersise my seed of faith, to learn and try. The seed sprouted and took root. Today, while I have not seen God, I could not deny His existance anymore than I could deny that sitting out all day in the summer sun without sunscreen gives me a sunburn. I know what I know to be true, with every fiber of my being. I have found a deep peace and great joy which I would have once not thought possible. Some may think of me a fool, asking how can I possibly know and what of XYZ... and I wish I could explain it fully, but it's not an easy task... it's perhaps like trying to explain the taste of salt to someone who has never tasted it. It's uh... salty? Well what is salty? And it all started with a question of which path I should set foot on... and a choice. Everyone has such choices in life, even if we don't think of it as such.

I also heartily agree with Sunnywindo. Freedom of religion is absolutely key: You should be free to worship (or not) as you see fit without being hassled.

You're from Chandler Arizona! My hubby is from there... he loves the desert, minus the scorpions. He has some great memories of the area though.

Just wanted to clarify... talking about "being hassled" and perhaps how peoples views vary on what that means. Yes, freedom of religion is key. I would hate to see government passing a law that said everyone had to be Christian, or visa versa... a law that said Christians were no longer allowed to believe XYZ. I do believe people should be able to make a choice of what religion or not they will hold to. However, my religion also sends out missionaries to teach our faith to others. We believe that God has commanded us to do this, and we do it out of care and concern for our fellow beings. But if someone says "no thanks" then we are told to respect that persons choice and move on. We don't seek to force our will on all. We offer... then it's up to the person. I have had missionaries from other faiths knock on my door. Doesn't bother me. They are polite to me, I am polite to them, we speak for a moment, I say no thank you, they leave a little pamphlet with me and move on. Some people might think of this as being "hassled" but I am grateful that religions have the freedom to do this. Admittedly, there are those who are more forceful in their methods, who are loud and very much disrespectful. I think that does more harm than good.

For instance, there is a big conflict going on right now regarding a piece of Main Street which is located next to the LDS temple in Salt Lake City. I won't go into the details here as it is long and complex. However, there have been those over the past year who have been very forceful and I think disrespectful in their manner regarding sharing their points of view. I have never really minded the folks who stand at the gates leading into Temple Square and hand out pamphlets about their own beliefs which typically are in disagreement with the LDS church. They have been around for ages, and as long as freedom exists, will continue to be. They are expressing their beliefs in a way that for the most part does not harrass or hassle anyone. But this last year, mostly due to the Main Street thing, there have been other people popping up. There have been people who have huge signs and stand there shouting at the top of their lungs, and sometimes have used bullhorn type things to help amplify or direct their shouting. And it's not the signs or the shouting or even their saying all Mormons are going to hell... it's the swearing and crude vulgar things that they shout. It's how they curse and scream at young couples comming out of the Temple on their wedding day. It's how they block areas that prevent couples from taking some of the wedding photos that would have otherwise been taken. It's how they swear and bully folks going in and out of the temple... not just the bride on her wedding day, but everyone... even the little elderly grandma and grandpa folk. How they push as far as they can, hoping to start some kind of conflict, admitting, even boasting that they have recorders at hand and will sue anyone that says or does anything back against them. Some of it has come across as quite hateful. These people truely set out to "hassle" others. It's sad really. What good does this kind of callous behavoir do? Would not their "cause" be better served in other ways? How would they feel if a group of folks stood on the sidewalk right in front of their church and screamed all sorts of awful things as their people came in and out of their church services, at the brides and the children and the elderly and all. Somehow I don't think they would be happy, yet they see nothing wrong with doing it to others. But, they had ACLU helping support their "right" to protest in such a manner, and what's a person to do? All you can do is try to settle things with through the courts, and if the courts side with the protesters, then that's that. It won't change my beliefs or my faith, you accept what is and go on with life. Course, they won't have to worry about groups of LDS people doing that to them in return, as most church members believe that that kind of behavoir is inappropriate. We are taught to have some respect for others religious beliefs, to react with courteous discourse and treat others as we would want to be treated... not to scream and curse at those with whom we disagree. That doesn't mean we don't stand up for our beliefs or express them... we just do it differently.

Something that pricks at my mind though. I have read where people have been banned by law from protesting, blocking, or even handing out pamphlets along a public sidewalk in front of abortion clinics in some areas. If people were to behave in front of one of these clinics as they have behaved in front of the Salt Lake temple, those folks would have been arrested... arrested and prevented from doing so much as handling out fliers because someone complained to the ACLU, cases went to court, and decisions were made that kept people who disagreed with abortion from "hassling" those going in and out of the clinic. (I am going on what I have read in the news, and it was a while ago that I read this and have heard little since so this may have been a more localized, temporary type ruling. Perhaps someone knows more?) But what made no sense to me is how could the ACLU say such behavoir is not acceptable outside an abortion clinic, but then say it's okay outside a house of worship? Doesn't make sense to me. I'm not saying we should ban all protest... I just wish the courts would be more consistant in their rulings is all. I don't advocate cracking down on folks freedom of speech... I just wish they would choose to be a bit more considerate is all. Ah well, if wishes were fishes we'd all have a fry, as my mother used to say.

Just my two bits...
Sara

[Walden]

And it's not the signs or the shouting or even their saying all Mormons are going to hell... it's the swearing and crude vulgar things that they shout. It's how they curse and scream at young couples comming out of the Temple on their wedding day.

Hmm... well... they may be going to hell too. Cursing, and crude, vulgar shouting don't seem very characteristic of a healthy relationship with the Almighty, at any length.

[Monster]

Someone is a theist who believes that God exists.
Someone is an atheist who believes that God
does not exist.
Someone is an agnostic who neither believes
that God exists nor that God does not exist.

To be a theist you don't have to know, or claim
to know that God exists. It's sufficient to believe that he does.

To be an atheist, you don't have to know, or claim to
know that God doesn't exist. It's sufficient to believe
that he doesn't.

So if you believe that God doesn't exist, but you
don't pretend to know it, you're an atheist.
The agnostic has no opinion. Best

Why do I always find these interesting threads when they are about to peter out? I need to find an office job where I can spend my time surfing the web and doing more posting on C&F.

Ok, I'm going to be a little picky here, has anyone pointed out yet that strictly speaking atheism is not a religion? Atheism is more a denial of the existence of a God or Supreme Being or however you wish to phrase it. Although Atheism is a belief I don't think it is a religion. I believe a religion as such has to point towards some sort of being or power or something, Devil worship would qualify as a religion, although it it might be gauche to point that out.

Jim, I agree with your post up to the point where you say that the agnostic has no opinion. I have considered myself an agnostic for 20+ years now and my opinion is that there is not enough evidence either way to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. I believe we may not even be asking the right questions about the ultimate reality of things. It seems that perhaps a new way of thinking is in order,
the New Tought Movement and its' subdivisions have made some progress in defining the playing field, but overall their teachings are a little weak, as they attempt to mix philosophy with Christianity and also with Buddhism or any other religion that you may wish to name (except maybe devil worship )

Philosophy I admittedly have not studied much, haven't found any that I can stay awake through yet.

Some people claim that physicists are on the cutting edge of finding the ultimate reality of the universe, (physics is another thing I have trouble staying awake for) but personally I believe they have a long long way to go before they get on the right track.

Still agnostic, still opinionated, still no leap of faith (why should there be?)

[Monster]

Oh yeah, being agnostic is not a religion either, just a belief.

[Lorenzo]

Jim Stone has a clear mind. His thought seem sorted out carefully.

When Jim says we don't choose most of our beliefs, I don't think he means we can't or that some don't choose them, because many do. But, what I hear him saying is that those who use "choice" to form their beliefs do so at great risk.

Have you ever been faced with such a clearly persuasive circumstance, or caught in a deeply thoughtful experience, or faced with one conclusion (because of the evidence), that you were...in a way "forced" to go with it? "Hey, I had no choice."

And likewise, have you ever come out of a darkness to see the light, and later seen yourself as having been somewhat naive in the past?

To form a belief by simple choice, e.g., "I choose to believe regardless of what I don't know, or the evidence contrary to my hopes," seems a bit arbitrary to me, and therefor cheap and subject to shifting changes..whichever way the stronger winds of doctrine happen to be blowing.

[desert_whistler]

Finally I disbelieved, but not because I
chose to. I disbelieve because what I've seen of life has
persuaded me that God's existence is improbable,
and because I'm not aware of good reasons
to think he exists. There is no leap of faith.

Hmm...I respectfully disagree with your last sentence.
Philosophers have been trying to prove (or disprove)
God's existence for literally thousands of years. Over
those thousands of years, some top thinkers have attacked
this. We still don't have our proof.

For every bit of "evidence" that God doesn't exist,
you can come up with equally compelling
"counterevidence" to the contrary. And vice versa.

So there is a leap of faith! What cannot be
proven is faith by definition! That's why the
religious are also known as the "faithful!" That is
why religious people refer to their religion
as their "faith."

Also, please understand that the above comments were not
a knock on either the athiests, the religious or the agnostic.
I'm just saying that to be an athiest or a religious person is
to be faithful. I'm not offering a value judgment on having
or not having faith. Whatever gives you inner peace is
a beautiful thing (as long as it doesn't harm others).

Best.

[Monster]

Never mind me, just over here in the corner thinking out loud.

I remeber taking a Religions of the World Class at AZ State back in the 80's. One of the first things that was covered that since primitive times man has tried to make sense of his surroundings. At first man would witness natural occurences and try to place a reason for it, such as why was that tree just struck by lightning? Or, why are we not finding any game in this area? Upon not finding any fault of his own for natural, happenings man began fabricating reasons and causes, hence religion was born. Religion came way before science and way before modern civilization. Sort of just a way of explaining the world. Is it any different today?

[Plastered Pawn]

I'm coming to this late, and haven't read all the previous posts. But, has anyone in the thread mentioned being a member of the Religious Society of Friends, aka The Quakers?
My wife and I attend (and play whistle at) a Quaker meeting.

Gary
Plastered Pawn

[herbivore12]

For every bit of "evidence" that God doesn't exist,
you can come up with equally compelling
"counterevidence" to the contrary. And vice versa.

So there is a leap of faith!

There is no "leap of faith" where a person finds the evidence for the existence of something to be non-compelling, is there?

By your reasoning, it takes a leap of faith to not believe there is a tiny red dinosaur riding a bright pink unicycle around the rings of Saturn. We don't have the means to disprove it, and I could easily write a book filled with claims for that dinosaur and its miraculous existence. But my book would not seem compelling to others, given the evidence, and they (probably) would feel well-justified in not believing in that dinosaur based on the fact of its extraordinary unlikelihood.

That's to say, if an atheist doesn't feel the evidence for a god or gods is compelling, and feels the fact of a god's existence to be extraordinarily unlikely, it's perfectly rational and reasonable that he would not believe in god, or gods, without appealing to faith.

It makes little sense to say that if someone else finds the evidence for god compelling, that an atheist who does not agree should nonetheless be said to be appealing to faith. It could be that the atheist is wrong, but not that his beliefs are faith-based.

Likewise, a believer who finds the evidence for god to be real and compelling is not really basing his belief on faith, either; he's appealing to evidence. When one believes in a thing despite the lack of solid evidence for it, or in spite of (apparent) evidence to the contrary, then I think it's proper to say they are appealing to faith. Appeals to real evidence are a different thing.

I think. But it's late, now, so . . .

[anniemcu]

Finally ... I disbelieve because what I've seen of life has persuaded me that God's existence is improbable,
and because I'm not aware of good reasons to think he exists. There is no leap of faith.

Hmm...I respectfully disagree with your last sentence ... to be an athiest or a religious person is to be faithful. I'm not offering a value judgment on having or not having faith. Whatever gives you inner peace is a beautiful thing (as long as it doesn't harm others).

I agree that whatever we *choose* to *believe* does require faith... either faith in what we've been told or shown, faith in who told or showed us, or faith in our own jundgement. It *is* a leap of faith to decide that we (or someone we trust) either know the answer or don't know, or that it doesn't matter what the 'answer' is...

Personally, I have faith that there is much more that we *don't* know than that we do, and I have faith that living my life in a manner that makes me feel like I'm doing the right thing, and making the *known* world a better place is the thing to do. That's a choice, based on a faith that good is preferable to evil, no matter what 'authority' may be accepted as in power.

Peace, love, and all that wonderful stuff,
annie

[desert_whistler]

Hilarious post, herbivore12 I was laughing my posterior off at the pink dinosaur! Not only was it a funny post, but it actually helps make my point that believing (or not) in God is a leap of faith.

Let's start with your own statement:

When one believes in a thing despite the lack of solid evidence for it, or in spite of (apparent) evidence to the contrary, then I think it's proper to say they are appealing to faith.

I absolutely, 100% agree with this. Very well put! The operative words here are "solid evidence." That's why your dinosaur analogy, while funny, is also off the mark. That is NOT what my reasoning implies! Obviously, a pink dinsaur orbiting Saturn on a unicycle is absurd (unless you're on mushrooms ). You're right, no sane person would believe it.

But I can also use the laws of physics, biology, etc. to come up with a very strong, compelling reason WHY it's absurd. I can calculate how fast you would have to go to orbit a body the size of Saturn, and thus conclude that a unicycle has inadequate propulsion (totally leaving out the whole problem of dinosaurs breathing, being smart enough to peddle, etc. etc.)

Now here's the key: I CANNOT use the laws of physics (or any other science) to come up with an equally compelling case for the existence (or non-existence) of God! It cannot be done!

Therefore, disbelieving in our friend the dinosaur is NOT a leap of faith: that disbelief is grounded in scientific laws that we know are valid (we've sent men to the moon by applying these laws). There are no similar scientific laws (or logical deductions) that point us towards (or away) from the existence of God.

Therefore, believing (or not) in the existence of God is indeed a leap of faith.

Now, I'm going to go back to playing my whistle. I have "faith" that I might learn to play decently some day

[herbivore12]

Hilarious post, herbivore12 I was laughing my posterior off at the pink dinosaur!

Pink dinosaurs, unicycling or not, are in fact funny.

Not only was it a funny post, but it actually helps make my point that believing (or not) in God is a leap of faith.

Here, however, you're wrong, I think; let's see why.

Let's start with your own statement:

When one believes in a thing despite the lack of solid evidence for it, or in spite of (apparent) evidence to the contrary, then I think it's proper to say they are appealing to faith.

I absolutely, 100% agree with this. Very well put! The operative words here are "solid evidence." That's why your dinosaur analogy, while funny, is also off the mark.

Solid evidence is operative, yes. So far we agree.

Now here's the key: I CANNOT use the laws of physics (or any other science) to come up with an equally compelling case for the existence (or non-existence) of God! It cannot be done!

Respectfully disagree. There's nothing in physics that precludes that dinosaur; it's just really, really unlikely. And you cannot, in this instance, use any of those laws to disprove the existence of that dinosaur. You can only get to the statement that the dinosaur unicycling around Saturn is not very likely.

Now stay with me here: some people believe the same thing about god. That a god's existence is very, very unlikely, given laws of physics, given biology, given chemistry, given the observed universe. Whether those people are right or not, they think that god's existence is as unlikely as the existence of that dinosaur.

What I'm saying is, just because you or anyone else may hold that it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god is not a good reason for assuming that for anyone else making that assumption is a leap of faith. That is, if a man were to walk up to me and lay out all of his scientific reasons for disbelieving in god, all of his philosophical reasons, all of his personal reasons: how can it possibly be said that he just made a leap of faith? He did the opposite, in fact; he's said, in essence, "some people may believe in god, and here is why those people are wrong." And then proceed to make rational, strong arguments.

That a person who believes in the possibility of god chooses not to heed those arguments doesn't mean that the person making the argument is incorrect or making a judgment based on faith. The atheist's nonbelief in god can be as strong as his belief that the sun will most likely rise in the morning, and based on equally scientific principles. If no one can make a convincing claim to him otherwise, if no one can present him with a case for god that is -- to him -- as convincing as the case for a godless universe, how can it possibly be said that he's making a leap of faith?

All you've said here is that you believe that the evidence for no god is not more convincing than the evidence for a god's existence. But your belief has no bearing on the beliefs of the other party; just because you can say "I don't buy it", doesn't mean that the other person has made some jump of faith. All it means is you don't agree with him. It does not mean you're right, nor that he's wrong, only that there's a disagreement. That fellow is still walking away believing that there is no god, and that his evidence proves as much. Sorry.

By the way, it works the other way, too. A believer, who states unequivocally that such-and-such a thing (he hears god's voice, or witnessed a miracle, or something) is absolute proof of the existence of god, is no longer a person taking that belief on faith. He believes he has evidence. That an atheist might believe otherwise, or believe the other person to have a mental illness, or that the miracle has a nongodlike explanation, has no bearing on the believer's belief. That believer is no longer taking god on faith; he's taking god's existence on the evidence available to him.

Santa: little kids believe in him. And we go to great lengths to make it so. We sneak presents in, we leave cookie crumbs on the table, sooty footprints around the tree, all to encourage this belief. We can forgive kids for believing in such a ridiculouts being, since we strive actively to fool them, to leave evidence that can lead only to the condlusion that Santa came and ate the cookies you left him and left presents for you under a tree. If we didn't pull this elaborate hoax, but just asked the kids to believe in Santa, it's likely some kids would look at us and say, "Yeah, right. Big fat guy arrives via aerobatic reindeer, slides down the chimney and leaves me presents. Sure." Others would believe, even without the evidence. The first group are skeptics; without evidence, they aren't going to believe in this being whose existence is very unlikely. The second group have faith; even though we aren't doing the hoaxing, they believe anyway, even with the lack of evidence.

It cannot be said that the first group are making a leap of faith just because the second group believes. So imagine, if you will, a person, who fervently believes that the available evidence speaks to the very unlikelihood of god, that to this person, god is no more likely than Santa (who really would have god-like attributes, if he existed). How can you say that this person is taking god's nonexistence on faith? It isn't so.

Likewise, you ask a fellow why he believes in god, and he says: "Well, one day I was fishing on the Susquehanna River, and my boat capsized. A great big hand descended from the clouds, righted the boat, plucked me from the river, patted me on the head, and then a voice said 'I am God, and I choose to save you so that you may help others', and so here I am bearing witness to His existence." If I were to present that man with every argument against god's existence, he'd still look at me calmily and say, "You would not believe that if you had been plucked from a raging river by a giant Heavenly Hand." He is not taking god on faith, either.

Nor does his belief in God, or the atheist's disbelief, require that the other person is making a leap of faith. They disagree, but one of them is simply wrong (probably); neither is making a claim of faith.

My wee dictionary here says that faith is: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Therefore, if a person has a belief that is based on evidence -- whether or not that evidence is good -- he is not making a claim predicated on faith. That a logical claim can be made to the contrary does not mean a thing. If I make a claim for that dinosaur that I feel is based on logic or proof -- if someone shows me a photo of the thing, even if it's false -- I'm not making a claim based on faith. Your good argument for the nonexistence of that dinosaur makes no difference, has no weight on whether my belief is based on faith. A kid who is tricked by false evidence into believing in Santa is not basing her belief on faith, but on evidence, cookie crumbs and sooty footprints and presents. The kid who believes in Santa even though he's given no evidence and can make no logical claim for Santa's existence: that kid is taking Santa on faith.

All of which is to say, you make this claim:

Now here's the key: I CANNOT use the laws of physics (or any other science) to come up with an equally compelling case for the existence (or non-existence) of God! It cannot be done!

To which it's easy just to answer.

Yes, one CAN use those laws to either prove or disprove god's existence (pretty easily, in fact); and it CAN be done.

Simply stating that it cannot be done does not prove that it cannot, and simply pointing out that people disagree whether it can be done or not means nothing. It can be done or it can't, regardless of what anyone thinks. And once one believes it can be done, and has been done, one is not making a leap of faith. One is simply believing.

Belief without supporting logic or evidence = faith. Belief with support of evidence or logic = not faith. It's easy (differentiating between the faithful and those who are not so; not the actual proof).

So there.