What makes religious people convienced that god(s) exist?

[lunakilo]

I have this VERY religious friend who keeps trying to convience me that I should believe in God because if I don't I will burn in Hell forever (which I am told is not a nice thing)

I have tried to explain to her that what she says just doesn't make sense to me.
She could just as well be telling me that 1+1=3 and I should believe in that because if I don't I will burn in Hell forever.
In my experience 1+1 does not equal 3, so I could not truely believe that even if it would save me from going to Hell.
Likewise, in my experience there are no gods. I have never met one, so I could not truely believe in the existence of god(s).
(I am trying to get my friend to accept the idea that the two of us will not be hanging out together in heaven )

So I keep wondering why some people are so convienced in the existence og god(s).
I assume that those people must have somehow met their god, why else would they think he exists?
But If they have met a god why is it so difficult to explain to others?

What am I missing here?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Dunno. Some people who have met their God explain it rather nicely.

 

[Tarheeler]

To put it simply, I'd say that most of us have had experiences in our lives that have convinced us of their existence. And it's more than just assuming "God did it" when something happens; for most people I know, including myself, those experiences left no doubt.

As for explaining it, it's just as hard as explaining how you felt when your child was born to someone who has no children, or how you react emotionally to a sunset. It's based on personal experiences that can't be analyzed and categorized like scientific data. It would certainly be easier if it was, but it isn't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have a hypothesis about this (run-of-the-mill believers, anyhow. I have different ideas about people who "have met their God" or had other sorts of mystical/"spiritual" experiences). Hopefully it doesn't offend any religious people here.

All of us construct mental models of how the world works. We then test these models (whether we realize it or not) against reality: basically, when something happens that violates our expectations (i.e. when our mental model's predictions fail), we interpret this as a problem with our model and adjust it accordingly. The rest of the time, when our mental models agree with what we experience, we interpret this as a sign that our mental models are sound.

... and that's where the problem is: we tend not to look at our mental models piece-by-piece and test each component individually. Instead, we tend to take agreement between our mental model and what we see in the world as support for our whole model. However, this makes us put unwarranted trust in the portions of our mental model that aren't actually tested very often.

IOW, because God is generally irrelevant (i.e. whether or not you believe in God makes very little impact on what you expect to see in the world on a day-to-day basis), it's rare for a person's ideas about God to be tested. Because it's rare for them to be tested, it's rare for them to fail a test, so people can think that their religious beliefs are more well-supported than they actually are.

As a (simplistic) illustrative example, if a person thinks that God brings the rain to make the plants grow, then when he sees the rain fall and the plants grow, this supports his idea, and he becomes more certain in his belief: that God brings the rain to make the plants grow... including the "God brings the rain" part. However, God's role in this has never really been tested. This means that when someone else comes along and suggests that the rain is caused by something other than God, this person's certainty, built from years of experience, will tell him to reject this idea even though he's never actually seen real, rigorous evidence for God.

I think this is one of those cases, like a lot of the problems that skepticism runs into, where we have something that works pretty well the majority of the time but stops being reliable on the fringes. We have to make logical shortcuts all the time in real life; we wouldn't be able to function if we had to do a rigorous double-blind study every time we had to make a decision, so we have to use rules of thumb... and the rule of thumb "if your expectations aren't violated, you probably have a pretty good idea of what's going on" is one that works pretty darn well most of the time. It's just not 100% reliable, and tends to break down when we apply it to things that are largely beyond our experience.

 

[lunakilo]

To put it simply, I'd say that most of us have had experiences in our lives that have convinced us of their existence. And it's more than just assuming "God did it" when something happens; for most people I know, including myself, those experiences left no doubt.

Can you give an example of an experience which helped to convience you?

As for explaining it, it's just as hard as explaining how you felt when your child was born to someone who has no children, or how you react emotionally to a sunset. It's based on personal experiences that can't be analyzed and categorized like scientific data. It would certainly be easier if it was, but it isn't.

Even before I had children I think I understood that parents usually have strong feelings towards their children even if I had never had the experience of feeling those feelings myself. So I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another thought: it just occurred to me that this might be why so many of the successful religions have regular community-based worship.

I think it's possible that we interpret the belief-affirming nature of these services as a tick in the "for" column... IOW, we subconsciously interpret our clergy/congregation/etc. telling us that God exists as a test for God's existence that has succeeded.

... which isn't to say that this was consciously intended by the people creating the religion's practices. I think it would be much more likely that it would just be a matter of religious "natural selection": these sorts of practices would help to affirm belief, so the religions that had them would end up being more successful than ones that didn't, all else being equal.

 

[lunakilo]

I have a hypothesis about this (run-of-the-mill believers, anyhow. I have different ideas about people who "have met their God" or had other sorts of mystical/"spiritual" experiences). Hopefully it doesn't offend any religious people here.

All of us construct mental models of how the world works. We then test these models (whether we realize it or not) against reality: basically, when something happens that violates our expectations (i.e. when our mental model's predictions fail), we interpret this as a problem with our model and adjust it accordingly. The rest of the time, when our mental models agree with what we experience, we interpret this as a sign that our mental models are sound.

... and that's where the problem is: we tend not to look at our mental models piece-by-piece and test each component individually. Instead, we tend to take agreement between our mental model and what we see in the world as support for our whole model. However, this makes us put unwarranted trust in the portions of our mental model that aren't actually tested very often.

IOW, because God is generally irrelevant (i.e. whether or not you believe in God makes very little impact on what you expect to see in the world on a day-to-day basis), it's rare for a person's ideas about God to be tested. Because it's rare for them to be tested, it's rare for them to fail a test, so people can think that their religious beliefs are more well-supported than they actually are.

As a (simplistic) illustrative example, if a person thinks that God brings the rain to make the plants grow, then when he sees the rain fall and the plants grow, this supports his idea, and he becomes more certain in his belief: that God brings the rain to make the plants grow... including the "God brings the rain" part. However, God's role in this has never really been tested. This means that when someone else comes along and suggests that the rain is caused by something other than God, this person's certainty, built from years of experience, will tell him to reject this idea even though he's never actually seen real, rigorous evidence for God.

I think this is one of those cases, like a lot of the problems that skepticism runs into, where we have something that works pretty well the majority of the time but stops being reliable on the fringes. We have to make logical shortcuts all the time in real life; we wouldn't be able to function if we had to do a rigorous double-blind study every time we had to make a decision, so we have to use rules of thumb... and the rule of thumb "if your expectations aren't violated, you probably have a pretty good idea of what's going on" is one that works pretty darn well most of the time. It's just not 100% reliable, and tends to break down when we apply it to things that are largely beyond our experience.

That sounds very wise. I think you may be correct

 

[Tarheeler]

Can you give an example of an experience which helped to convience you?

No, and for three reasons.

First, as I've already said, it would be impossible to explain. Second, they are extremely personal, and I'm not about to go telling deeply personal details to random strangers on the internet. Third, I have no interest in convincing anyone of what I belive. As has been proven countless times on this forum, it's a useless endeavor.

Even before I had children I think I understood that parents usually have strong feelings towards their children even if I had never had the experience of feeling those feelings myself. So I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.

I didn't say understand there are strong feelings. I said explaing exactly how you felt to someone who had ever shared that experience. How do explain color to someone blind from birth and acheive perfect understanding?

 

[lunakilo]

No, and for three reasons.

First, as I've already said, it would be impossible to explain. Second, they are extremely personal, and I'm not about to go telling deeply personal details to random strangers on the internet. Third, I have no interest in convincing anyone of what I belive. As has been proven countless times on this forum, it's a useless endeavor.

It is quite understandable that you don't want to share personal details with random people on the internet.
Unfortunatly this does not help me very much

I didn't say understand there are strong feelings. I said explaing exactly how you felt to someone who had ever shared that experience. How do explain color to someone blind from birth and acheive perfect understanding?

You don't. But you probably can make a blind person understand the concept of what colors are, and probably give them an idea of why colors can be so fascinating.

I actally have some experience at this type of thing. I am a congenital anosmic, that is I was born without a sense of smell.
I have never smelled a thing in my life and will never fully understand what smelling something is like, but that I think I understand the general idea of what smelling is.

Why is perfect understanding needed? (and I don't man about smelling, but about religious experiences )

 

[JohnLeo]

Likewise, in my experience there are no gods. I have never met one, so I could not truely believe in the existence of god(s).
(I am trying to get my friend to accept the idea that the two of us will not be hanging out together in heaven )

So I keep wondering why some people are so convienced in the existence og god(s).
I assume that those people must have somehow met their god, why else would they think he exists?
But If they have met a god why is it so difficult to explain to others?

What am I missing here?

Let me provide some food for thought concerning this matter. Let's ignore beliefs for the moment and focus on what we know. We know, as a result of scientific inquiry, that the universe we live in came into being some 13.7 billion years ago in a brilliant flash of radiant energy known as "the big bang." The early universe bore no resemblance to what we behold today. There were no stars. no planets, no galaxies, no people; there were not even atoms. The early universe consisted of nothing but sub-atomic particles in an unstructured fashion, similar to sand on a beach. Now, the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Given 13.7 billion years of time, can a chaotic collection of mindless sub-atomic particles rearrange themselves into stars, planets and brains without there being any conscious thought behind it? If we are honest with ourselves, the answer is yes, it's possible, but is it probable? NO! We deists take the position that the creation bespeaks the existence of a creator in accordance with the narural law of cause and effect. Of course we know nothing concerning the motives and nature of any creator. The god of the theologians is a man made construct which has no basis in reality and not a shred of evidence to support it. Their idea that a "merciful" and "forgiving" god sends good people to a bad place is an absurdity.

 

[Willamena]

Interesting theory, but...

As a (simplistic) illustrative example, if a person thinks that God brings the rain to make the plants grow, then when he sees the rain fall and the plants grow, this supports his idea, and he becomes more certain in his belief: that God brings the rain to make the plants grow... including the "God brings the rain" part. However, God's role in this has never really been tested.

The same example works to justify our belief in nature that works, by itself.

 

[Tarheeler]

It is quite understandable that you don't want to share personal details with random people on the internet.
Unfortunatly this does not help me very much

I know, sorry.:sorry1:

Why is perfect understanding needed? (and I don't man about smelling, but about religious experiences )

Because that's what is needed. When people ask for others to explain why they believe, what is demanded is typically along the lines of scientific evidence; they want data that can analyzed and tested. But that isn't what makes the faithful believe. It's experiences and feelings, and the only way to really get it is with perfect understanding. Knowing that there is something there, or having an idea of what they're talking about doesn't meet the requirement of really understanding what they said.

In the end, you're not asking to have an idea of blue or an idea of what an orange smells like. You're asking to see blue and smell orange; you're asking to see their experience exactly as they see them.

 

[waitasec]

you're asking to see their experience exactly as they see them.

why do you suppose that is?
wouldn't it be because they are asking us to experience what they are experiencing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting theory, but...

The same example works to justify our belief in nature that works, by itself.

This gets into something else: if two models describe reality equally well, then the difference between them (God, in this case) is irrelevant. I suppose I'm willing to
concede that an irrelevant God might exist (though I'm not willing to concede that we have any reason to believe in such a God), but IMO, an irrelevant God is incompatible with virtually any God-concept that anyone actually believes in.

 

[lunakilo]

Let me provide some food for thought concerning this matter. Let's ignore beliefs for the moment and focus on what we know. We know, as a result of scientific inquiry, that the universe we live in came into being some 13.7 billion years ago in a brilliant flash of radiant energy known as "the big bang." The early universe bore no resemblance to what we behold today. There were no stars. no planets, no galaxies, no people; there were not even atoms. The early universe consisted of nothing but sub-atomic particles in an unstructured fashion, similar to sand on a beach. Now, the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Given 13.7 billion years of time, can a chaotic collection of mindless sub-atomic particles rearrange themselves into stars, planets and brains without there being any conscious thought behind it? If we are honest with ourselves, the answer is yes, it's possible, but is it probable? NO! We deists take the position that the creation bespeaks the existence of a creator in accordance with the narural law of cause and effect.

So I guess that means you are convienced that this being exists without ever having met it. And this conviction is based on how you see the universe.

(I will leave the matter of how much I disagree with your conclusion since that is not the point of my question.)

Of course we know nothing concerning the motives and nature of any creator. The god of the theologians is a man made construct which has no basis in reality and not a shred of evidence to support it. Their idea that a "merciful" and "forgiving" god sends good people to a bad place is an absurdity.

here I agree with your argument.

 

[lunakilo]

Because that's what is needed. When people ask for others to explain why they believe, what is demanded is typically along the lines of scientific evidence; they want data that can analyzed and tested. But that isn't what makes the faithful believe. It's experiences and feelings, and the only way to really get it is with perfect understanding. Knowing that there is something there, or having an idea of what they're talking about doesn't meet the requirement of really understanding what they said.

In the end, you're not asking to have an idea of blue or an idea of what an orange smells like. You're asking to see blue and smell orange; you're asking to see their experience exactly as they see them.

No, that is just what you think I am saking

I am not asking you to prove to me that a god exists.
If you said "I know God exists because I have met him" then that would make sence to me in that I understand why that would make you believe that God exists. That doesn't mean that you have convienced me that that is what happened, just that I see why you believe what you believe.

I find it strange however that people can't describe such experiences. Usually it is something fluffy like 'it is a personal experience' or something like that.

 

[Tarheeler]

No, that is just what you think I am saking

I am not asking you to prove to me that a god exists.
If you said "I know God exists because I have met him" then that would make sence to me in that I understand why that would make you believe that God exists. That doesn't mean that you have convienced me that that is what happened, just that I see why you believe what you believe.

I find it strange however that people can't describe such experiences. Usually it is something fluffy like 'it is a personal experience' or something like that.

Ok. Good luck with it then.

 

[Me Myself]

No, that is just what you think I am saking

I am not asking you to prove to me that a god exists.
If you said "I know God exists because I have met him" then that would make sence to me in that I understand why that would make you believe that God exists. That doesn't mean that you have convienced me that that is what happened, just that I see why you believe what you believe.

I find it strange however that people can't describe such experiences. Usually it is something fluffy like 'it is a personal experience' or something like that.

It`s like describing blue to a person that has been blind by birth.

 

[Copernicus]

Conviction is a matter of degree, and I don't think you can say that a religious believer is fully confident that their deity exists. Generally speaking, our beliefs tend to be maintained on a scaffolding of other supporting beliefs. So people who believe in gods also believe in a number of other things that might be subject to challenge--for example, the idea that thinking minds can exist independently of some kind of brain activity. When there are a whole lot of these "memes" reinforcing each other, the belief does not usually go away if you knock out just one of the supports that reinforce it. A strong conviction that God exists is probably propped up by a bulwark of supporting beliefs, many of which may feel impervious to challenge in the mind of the believer.

I think it is also important to ask why someone would think you ought to believe in God. Two different people may have completely different rationalizations that lead them to the same conclusion--that their god exists. To me, the more interesting question is why that individual thinks it important to proselytize the existence of a god. Your friend says you will burn in hell. That argument won't scare you, but it probably scares her. It is a winning argument in her internal debate with herself over whether God really exists. To deny God's existence leads to bad consequences, so don't go there. She uses this same argument to try to convince you, but you don't have the same web of supporting beliefs in place to make it sound convincing. For example, you may not accept the idea that hell exists or that a deity would necessarily punish you severely for lack of faith. She can't communicate with you, because she has a very different model of the world, to paraphrase 9-10ths_Penguin.

 

[lunakilo]

It`s like describing blue to a person that has been blind by birth.

Blue is a color. There are many colors in the world.
Think of colors as sound, that is the frequencies between about 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz (those are the frequencies that most people can hear) reprecent colors.

Blue is the reprecented by a small range of frequencies.
Think of a note on a string on a guitar and the tighten or loosen the string slightly, the tones the string makes are all shades of blue.
You can tell the difference between different shades of the same color but you still give them the same basic name because they are very similar to each other.

Each color is reprecented by a small range of frequencies.
Where one color stops and another begin can be difficult to tell. Different people may have slightly different opinions on where blue ends an purple begins.

But blue by itself is nothing special, just like a note played on a guitar is nothing special by itself. But if you put different colors together things become interesting. Some colors go well together others don't, just like some combination of sounds are pleasing and others are not.

Watching something like a sunset is like listening to a piece of music.
Most people like watching the sunset, so I suppose you should think of the sunset as a piece of music that you like.
Each sunset is the same piece of music but played slightly different, like cover numbers. You know the basic tune which is being played out, but you don't know exactly how this version of the tune is going to sound.

Sorry, I get carried away. It was not sunset I was supposed to explain, but the color blue.
Well, as I said, blue is just a range of frequencies.
Many people associate a color with things which contains a lot of that color.
For example, when I think of the color blue I think of the sky on a summer day, such a sky can be very blue. So blue for me is a summer day.
Many other things are blue, so other people may think of different things when thinking of the color blue; a bit like how the same piece of music makes different people think of different things.

See...

That was my attempt at explaining the color blue to a blind person.
That explanation will not make a blind person know what blue looks like, but hopefully it will give that person some understanding of what colors like the color blue are like.

People have tried to explain what smelling farts are like, and I think I sort of get it even though I have never smelled one in my life.

Why can't people who have had religious experiences which helped convience them of the existence of god(s) try to explain that?