Five Reasons to Believe in God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not my intention to confuse the language, and I apologize if it seems that way. I don't think the point is conflicted. We can use a different word, maybe compelled seems less manipulative. But, the overall point is that, as far as will goes, somehow one dominant desire rises to the top and becomes the only possible will. And this is not, at this point, a rational process.

If you have a definition of will that you prefer we can go with that. I think we need to agree on a definition of will, and also free will if you see that as different, before we proceed. As I said in another post, if you are content with 'the ability to choose' as the complete definition of will, then we can't go any further.

I think that "the ability to choose" isn't quite right, because it doesn't capture the idea of desiring one option over another. I'd personally define "will" as something more like "the ability to formulate goals and work toward them."

This is fine - our ethics are a useful social construct not dependent upon free will. This also implies, I think, that agents (people) have moral responsibility even when they have no ability to do otherwise. The free will defense has never gotten anybody out of jail!

Is this rational, or just 'reasonable' because it is what works?

Yes, I think it is rational.

As I said previously, I am exploring why it is reasonable to believe in God (at least as reasonable as the alternatives). You seem to be asking for empirical evidence (as demonstrated for your request for testable hypotheses in order to be convinces). I don't have that. There is another thread for evidence for God. I believe my entry was 'chocolate.'

But I think that whether belief in God is reasonable comes down to evidence, because it's really a matter of two questions:

- is the belief compatible with what we know? Has the belief been refuted?
- does what we know suggest or point to the belief?

I think both are necessary for a belief to be reasonable. If a belief fails that first test, then it's not reasonable. However, that test by itself isn't enough, as Russell's Teapot demonstrates: there's no way to refute the claim that there's a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars, but (and hopefully you'll agree) belief in that teapot isn't reasonable. We need to meet the second test as well.

OK! That actually looks to me like a pretty clear position - you do not think free will is possible.

I'm not sure if "possible" is the right word, because conceivably, someone smart enough could come up with some sort of thinking entity that isn't subject to our biological constraints... but no, I don't think humans have free will, at least in the sense I think you're using the term.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to make sure I understand your point. You seem to say that will is separate from reason, and reason (if present) acts after will arises, or acts on the products that will puts forth and picks the 'best' one. And that when reason is present (in a human, as opposed to a sponge), reason may be more or less faulty, resulting in better or worse choices. If I am not getting you correctly I would be happy to work from your explanation.

I guess that works, but I'm not really sure where you're going with this. I didn't think it was exactly earth-shattering to suggest that creatures that aren't necessarily rational do seem to want things and work toward acheiving those things they want.

We'd need to discuss process philosophy to get into that. I'm happy to put that aside or we can start a different thread.

If you don't need it for your argument/discussion, it's probably better to put it aside.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If all is subjective, it's very easy.

Better to say that our understanding of every "object" is relative to our perception, intellect, social context, and even our language. So our understanding is subject to these limitations, rendering it impossible to locate any object in a vaccum that is free from the bias that is required to be removed for "objectivity."

This is especially true when discussing God, who cannot be objectified.

 

[lunamoth]

Better to say that our understanding of every "object" is relative to our perception, intellect, social context, and even our language. So our understanding is subject to these limitations, rendering it impossible to locate any object in a vaccum that is free from the bias that is required to be removed for "objectivity."

This is especially true when discussing God, who cannot be objectified.

Well said.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well said.

:takeabow:

 

[Orias]

I don't understand that at all.

Alright...

Our Will can only desire to be free, but not truly be free.

Of course, I am One to think that the entire world is delusional.

We do not have the free Will to live forever. We only have the Will to think that we possibly could.

Of course, we do have the Will to breathe in outspace and underwater, as well as fly and swim faster than sharks (boats).

These acquired Wills are because we have enough free Will to postulate and put ourselves in the position where we can do what our Will desires by creating things that allow us to do what we Will.

But freedom is not necessarily truth, like a government that promises freedom is not truly giving freedom because we all know what governments do.

Life, is not freedom because we did not have the freedom to chose Life, we just are.

By free Will, we have free thought. An act of free Will could be easy to find, true free Will has yet to be understood.

 

[Willamena]

OK. If I am understanding you, you see will as involving reason, or at least as involving sorting power - first-order desires (I want chocolate as a reward; too much chocolate is not healthy) sorted out by 2nd order desires (I want to be healthy, or even I want to want to be healthy). You might point to having second order desires that lead to volition (desire that moves to action) as free will.

I haven't really pondered free will in terms of "desires," so the discussion is a bit mind-boggling. Sorry if my questions miss the mark.

 

[Willamena]

Alright...

Our Will can only desire to be free, but not truly be free.

Of course, I am One to think that the entire world is delusional.

We do not have the free Will to live forever. We only have the Will to think that we possibly could.

Of course, we do have the Will to breathe in outspace and underwater, as well as fly and swim faster than sharks (boats).

These acquired Wills are because we have enough free Will to postulate and put ourselves in the position where we can do what our Will desires by creating things that allow us to do what we Will.

But freedom is not necessarily truth, like a government that promises freedom is not truly giving freedom because we all know what governments do.

Life, is not freedom because we did not have the freedom to chose Life, we just are.

By free Will, we have free thought. An act of free Will could be easy to find, true free Will has yet to be understood.

Thanks for sharing that image.

 

[Copernicus]

If you have no control over the process, even if the outcome is the overall result that your combined past and physiology 'want' you to have, how is that free in any sense of the word?

Just what is it that you think an "I" or "you" is? We are beings made up of memories, goals, desires, beliefs, etc. Nobody has control over the circumstances that made them what they are. Nobody. What we have control over are the choices confronting us. I don't see why it troubles you that our behavior is part of the causal chain that makes up reality. Events are either caused or random. Our choices are not random. If they were, then nothing we do would make any sense.

I think the conclusion is that the will is 'real' but it is not rational. So, now the question is, do we have any control over our reason? Can we choose what we believe?

Reason is just a method for ensuring consistency across sets of beliefs. We can make ourselves believe anything we want with enough effort, but we usually strive to believe what is true. That instinct is built into us, because it is necessary for our survival.

 

[lunamoth]

I think that "the ability to choose" isn't quite right, because it doesn't capture the idea of desiring one option over another. I'd personally define "will" as something more like "the ability to formulate goals and work toward them."


Yes, I think it is rational.

OK.

But I think that whether belief in God is reasonable comes down to evidence, because it's really a matter of two questions:

- is the belief compatible with what we know? Has the belief been refuted?
- does what we know suggest or point to the belief?

I think both are necessary for a belief to be reasonable. If a belief fails that first test, then it's not reasonable. However, that test by itself isn't enough, as Russell's Teapot demonstrates: there's no way to refute the claim that there's a teapot in orbit between the Earth and Mars, but (and hopefully you'll agree) belief in that teapot isn't reasonable. We need to meet the second test as well.

This set of criteria seems like a loop to me. Things can be reasonable, and empirically true, even if what we currently know does not suggest or point to them. If that was the necessary criteria for what is reasonable, we could never advance in our understanding of the universe. And once postulated, then we are back to your first criteria.
In addition, your line of reasoning assumes that empirical evidence is the way to address issues about God, when this assertion has not been supported. I think this is begging the question.

You could add, "anything of importance to me requires that it be supported by empirical evidence, therefore God is not important to me."

I'm not sure if "possible" is the right word, because conceivably, someone smart enough could come up with some sort of thinking entity that isn't subject to our biological constraints... but no, I don't think humans have free will, at least in the sense I think you're using the term.

OK.

I guess that works, but I'm not really sure where you're going with this. I didn't think it was exactly earth-shattering to suggest that creatures that aren't necessarily rational do seem to want things and work toward acheiving those things they want.

OK. And as worked out earlier, we are no different from animals except in the degree of our ability to formulate goals and work toward them. Likewise with machines that have better ability (free of distractions?) to formulate goals and work toward them.

Would you agree with this: We are the sum of our experience, which shapes our neural networks as well as laying the ground that determines our present, the current data being perceived by our senses, and the machinery we inherited by a roll of the die from our parents.

Or, to you, what does it mean to be human?

 

[lunamoth]

Just what is it that you think an "I" or "you" is? We are beings made up of memories, goals, desires, beliefs, etc. Nobody has control over the circumstances that made them what they are. Nobody. What we have control over are the choices confronting us. I don't see why it troubles you that our behavior is part of the causal chain that makes up reality. Events are either caused or random. Our choices are not random. If they were, then nothing we do would make any sense.

I'm not troubled by the idea of cause and effect. We've been exploring how the worldview of materialism falls short in explaining the human experience. If we use this worldview we need to create the fictions of "I" and "self" and "will" and "rationality" to smoothly achieve 'what works.'

Reason is just a method for ensuring consistency across sets of beliefs. We can make ourselves believe anything we want with enough effort, but we usually strive to believe what is true. That instinct is built into us, because it is necessary for our survival.

Thank you Copernicus. That is very clearly stated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This set of criteria seems like a loop to me. Things can be reasonable, and empirically true, even if what we currently know does not suggest or point to them.

I disagree. When confronted with different mutually exclusive ideas, if you're going to choose between them reasonably, you have to have some reason to pick this one over that one.

This applies to specificity as well: this thread is about God, right? Not "something" or "the unknown", but God. Again, if you pare down that vague "unknown" to get something sharp enough to call it "God" as opposed to something else, you need some rational basis if this process can be said to be reasonable.

The only other alternative I see is to take an a priori belief in God and say "that could work here" for each of the issues you raised... but this relies on an arbitrary - and therefore not rational, IMO - initial belief in God.

If that was the necessary criteria for what is reasonable, we could never advance in our understanding of the universe. And once postulated, then we are back to your first criteria.

Sure we can. Just because a belief system isn't reasonable doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'd say that the belief systems of babies, for instance, are probably quite unreasonable in terms of rationality. Still, they can serve as a starting point: when we're confronted with ideas that go against our mental model of how the world works, we figure out whether to adapt our model to accommodate them or reject the ideas. Iteratively, our belief systems become more and more reasonable.

In addition, your line of reasoning assumes that empirical evidence is the way to address issues about God, when this assertion has not been supported. I think this is begging the question.

I think that empirical evidence is the way to address issues about knowledge generally, and I think that the question of reasonableness of a belief really boils down to one of knowledge.

You could add, "anything of importance to me requires that it be supported by empirical evidence, therefore God is not important to me."

If I did add that, would I be wrong?

If you're not supporting your beliefs with empirical evidence, what are you using to support them?

OK. And as worked out earlier, we are no different from animals except in the degree of our ability to formulate goals and work toward them.

Umm... we are animals.

Would you agree with this: We are the sum of our experience, which shapes our neural networks as well as laying the ground that determines our present, the current data being perceived by our senses, and the machinery we inherited by a roll of the die from our parents.

I'd probably word it a bit differently, but in the broad strokes, that's probably close enough.

Or, to you, what does it mean to be human?

Heh... that's the $64,000 question right there.

Depends on the context, IMO. In some cases, Plato's definition ("a featherless biped having broad nails") would work; in others, something a bit more profound might be needed. However, the meaning of "human", being a term coined by humans for use by humans, is subject to definition by humans.

 

[lunamoth]

I disagree. When confronted with different mutually exclusive ideas, if you're going to choose between them reasonably, you have to have some reason to pick this one over that one.

This applies to specificity as well: this thread is about God, right? Not "something" or "the unknown", but God. Again, if you pare down that vague "unknown" to get something sharp enough to call it "God" as opposed to something else, you need some rational basis if this process can be said to be reasonable.

The only other alternative I see is to take an a priori belief in God and say "that could work here" for each of the issues you raised... but this relies on an arbitrary - and therefore not rational, IMO - initial belief in God.

Those initial reasons, though, can be subjective, are subjective, although you call them a priori.

Sure we can. Just because a belief system isn't reasonable doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'd say that the belief systems of babies, for instance, are probably quite unreasonable in terms of rationality. Still, they can serve as a starting point: when we're confronted with ideas that go against our mental model of how the world works, we figure out whether to adapt our model to accommodate them or reject the ideas. Iteratively, our belief systems become more and more reasonable.

I agree.

I think that empirical evidence is the way to address issues about knowledge generally, and I think that the question of reasonableness of a belief really boils down to one of knowledge.


If I did add that, would I be wrong?

No, not at all. You would be more right.

If you're not supporting your beliefs with empirical evidence, what are you using to support them?

My experience. My subjective worldview. My perspective. What works for me. I don't agree that they need to be supported with empirical evidence. That is the wrong tool.

Umm... we are animals.

I agree. I was not trying to say otherwise.

I'd probably word it a bit differently, but in the broad strokes, that's probably close enough.


Heh... that's the $64,000 question right there.

Depends on the context, IMO. In some cases, Plato's definition ("a featherless biped having broad nails") would work; in others, something a bit more profound might be needed. However, the meaning of "human", being a term coined by humans for use by humans, is subject to definition by humans.

Thanks!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those initial reasons, though, can be subjective, are subjective, although you call them a priori.

A light bulb just went on in my head: when you said before that you were giving reasons why belief in God is reasonable, what do you mean?

- reasons why it is reasonable to not abandon a belief in God already held
- reasons why it is reasonable to adopt a belief in God

I think so far, I've assumed you meant something like the second one, but it just occurred to me that you might mean something more like the first.

My experience. My subjective worldview. My perspective. What works for me. I don't agree that they need to be supported with empirical evidence. That is the wrong tool.

How do you figure?

IMO, you just push the question of evidence back a step with that approach: if you base a belief on an unreasonable worldview, is the belief reasonable? I'd say it probably isn't. But how do you determine whether a worldview is reasonable? Again, it's a matter of evaluating its support and testing the worldview against the available evidence. At some point, you have to dig down to some sort of rational foundation if you want to say that the ultimate conclusion you reached is rational.

 

[Seabear]

Sorry for not reading the whole thread and I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but your number 2 reason is basically Pascal's Wager.

Taken from Wikipedia

a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

The problem with this is, assuming there is a god or gods, that he/she/it would know that you only choose to believe in them not based on faith but based on the fact that "there nothing better" or "what do I have to lose". Also your warrant in number 2 is that believing in a god(s) is desirable to some people. Sure some people find happiness in religion but it's just as possible to find happiness without religion. Religion is not a necessity to live a fulfilling life IMO.

And as for 1,3,4 and 5 your right! All those things are subjective, but because of how our minds are programed (by evolution! lol) we want to belong to part of a group. Just look at Salomon Asch's experiments(I would post a link but I dont have 15 post yet just look it up!). And I'm sure you can remember back to high school when you where in class and the teacher asked a question like "x=? how many think x is 2?" and the smart kid raised his hand then the whole class raised their hands, even the people who thought everyone else was wrong rose(rose is that the right word?) their hands. The same thing can be applied to morals. Most everyone(besides people with antisocial disorder and other disorders) believe that killing people is bad because they're raised from birth to believe that and they don't want to become a outsider to the group because "back in the day" being a outsider meant certain death. I could go into more depth if someone wanted me to.

 

[lunamoth]

A light bulb just went on in my head: when you said before that you were giving reasons why belief in God is reasonable, what do you mean?

- reasons why it is reasonable to not abandon a belief in God already held
- reasons why it is reasonable to adopt a belief in God

I think so far, I've assumed you meant something like the second one, but it just occurred to me that you might mean something more like the first.

Yes, I had in mind the first when I started the thread. [I thought that we already discussed this somewhere along the lines? Maybe it was with someone else.]

How do you figure?

Use the right tool for the right job. I would not use the criteria of empirical evidence in whether I enjoy a book, or whether I love my family.

IMO, you just push the question of evidence back a step with that approach: if you base a belief on an unreasonable worldview, is the belief reasonable? I'd say it probably isn't. But how do you determine whether a worldview is reasonable? Again, it's a matter of evaluating its support and testing the worldview against the available evidence. At some point, you have to dig down to some sort of rational foundation if you want to say that the ultimate conclusion you reached is rational.

Two things. One, I can look at the initial list and ask - does it make more sense, less sense, or no difference if there is God for each of these. Frankly, they each make more sense to me if there is a Something More that is the grounds for reason and goodness. But, as I have already conceded, this amounts to a God of the Philosophical gaps. I would never say that this is a reason to stop looking at any of these interesting questions, but frankly they, otherwise, strike me as a bottomless quagmire.

Two, these questions demonstrate how materialism and the empirical method simply fall short in examining issues that are important for humans. We need to admit to some illusions to make it fit how we live.

 

[lunamoth]

Sorry for not reading the whole thread and I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but your number 2 reason is basically Pascal's Wager.

Taken from Wikipedia


The problem with this is, assuming there is a god or gods, that he/she/it would know that you only choose to believe in them not based on faith but based on the fact that "there nothing better" or "what do I have to lose". Also your warrant in number 2 is that believing in a god(s) is desirable to some people. Sure some people find happiness in religion but it's just as possible to find happiness without religion. Religion is not a necessity to live a fulfilling life IMO.

And as for 1,3,4 and 5 your right! All those things are subjective, but because of how our minds are programed (by evolution! lol) we want to belong to part of a group. Just look at Salomon Asch's experiments(I would post a link but I dont have 15 post yet just look it up!). And I'm sure you can remember back to high school when you where in class and the teacher asked a question like "x=? how many think x is 2?" and the smart kid raised his hand then the whole class raised their hands, even the people who thought everyone else was wrong rose(rose is that the right word?) their hands. The same thing can be applied to morals. Most everyone(besides people with antisocial disorder and other disorders) believe that killing people is bad because they're raised from birth to believe that and they don't want to become a outsider to the group because "back in the day" being a outsider meant certain death. I could go into more depth if someone wanted me to.

Hi Seabear, Thank you for your post and welcome to RF!

I'm not going to touch Pascal's wager.

Cheers,
luna

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I had in mind the first when I started the thread. [I thought that we already discussed this somewhere along the lines? Maybe it was with someone else.]

Maybe - I don't recall seeing it, but I may have missed it.

Use the right tool for the right job. I would not use the criteria of empirical evidence in whether I enjoy a book, or whether I love my family.

No - those are matters of subjective, aesthetic feeling. They don't need evidentiary support, because the question of whether you love your family or enjoy a book lies in the love or enjoyment you feel, which you can connect with directly.

OTOH, when we're talking about the existence of God, this doesn't hold true unless you're talking about the existence of "God-the-concept", not "God-the-creator-of-the-universe" that you alluded to in the OP. If God physically exists and is actually active in the universe, then the question of belief in the existence of God is squarely within the purview of empirical investigation.

Exploration of "God-the-active-phenomenon" is more analogous to the question of the existence of aether than it is to the question of the existence of your love for your family.

Two things. One, I can look at the initial list and ask - does it make more sense, less sense, or no difference if there is God for each of these. Frankly, they each make more sense to me if there is a Something More that is the grounds for reason and goodness.

And that's fine... as long as "making more sense" is based on some sort of rational reasoning. If it's just based on a gut feeling, then the conclusion may very well be unreasonable.

But, as I have already conceded, this amounts to a God of the Philosophical gaps. I would never say that this is a reason to stop looking at any of these interesting questions, but frankly they, otherwise, strike me as a bottomless quagmire.

Isn't this another fallacious appeal to consequences? If your argument is that without God, we can't answer important question 'X', then maybe you're right and we can't answer it... but does this have any bearing on whether God exists or not?

Two, these questions demonstrate how materialism and the empirical method simply fall short in examining issues that are important for humans. We need to admit to some illusions to make it fit how we live.

So God is an illusion? I'll concede the existence of "God-the-illusion".

 

[lunamoth]

No - those are matters of subjective, aesthetic feeling. They don't need evidentiary support, because the question of whether you love your family or enjoy a book lies in the love or enjoyment you feel, which you can connect with directly.

OTOH, when we're talking about the existence of God, this doesn't hold true unless you're talking about the existence of "God-the-concept", not "God-the-creator-of-the-universe" that you alluded to in the OP. If God physically exists and is actually active in the universe, then the question of belief in the existence of God is squarely within the purview of empirical investigation.

Exploration of "God-the-active-phenomenon" is more analogous to the question of the existence of aether than it is to the question of the existence of your love for your family.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, 9/10ths. I see this as squarely within the realm of subjective experience.

And that's fine... as long as "making more sense" is based on some sort of rational reasoning. If it's just based on a gut feeling, then the conclusion may very well be unreasonable.

I've been discussing why I think it makes sense.

Isn't this another fallacious appeal to consequences? If your argument is that without God, we can't answer important question 'X', then maybe you're right and we can't answer it... but does this have any bearing on whether God exists or not?

No. Where have I said "God exists because of X?"

So God is an illusion?

As much as "I" am.

 

[lunamoth]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, 9/10ths. I see this as squarely within the realm of subjective experience.


I've been discussing why I think it makes sense.


No. Where have I said "God exists because of X?"


As much as "I" am.

Actually, I just realized the hole in my logic above. So, I will humbly concede to 9/10ths. Thank you for the conversation which helped me clarify my thinking on this. : hamster :

 

[Orias]

Thanks for sharing that image.

For some reason I have a feeling you disagree