why do people believe in god?

[Tr6ai0ls4]

The reason for this post is to gather opinions of people with different beliefs and views of god. I do not believe in any one religion however I do believe in a higher power. I thought that perhaps people who are atheist or follow any religion might have some intersting things to say on this subject.

Why is it that for thousands upon thousands of years millions of people maintain a belief in some sort of god or higher power?

My opinion is that there are different types of believers who believe for different reasons. Someone may believe blindly just because they were taught to all their life, another might believe because it simply brings them comfort to assume that there is something out there bigger then they are that controls things and makes things right if that is their perception of what god is.

But why wont these beliefs just go away? Why is it that they have stayed with us through everything? Could it be simply because of the things that I have mentioned above or is it something more then that? I think that somebody who is intelligent would not just blindly believe anything no matter what they brought up to do. Same goes for the other reason i have mentioned. The reason that seems to make the most sense to me is that there actually is a god and there are intelligent people out there who actually actually see god for what god is and somewhat understand god. Then these people teach other people less intelligent then them and the less intelligent people twist up all their beliefs as the beliefs get passed down to their children, the children of their children, etc.. The beliefs get mixed up because some people believe blindly what they are told without questioning or trying to understand what the beliefs actually mean.

Whats your opinion?
[ 16 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]

 

[Dan1584]

I'm not religious. I am agnostic...I don't believe in god but I believe that the flow of three major forces in the universe: time, mass, and energy control life (but those forces don't predict they just flow and when they intersect they cause different reactions in the universe and life.) My theory is VERY VERY comlicated it is mainly scientific but it makes sense if I can explain in verbally.
Anyway I think people believe in a god because it gives them comfort, hope, and guidance. Thats pretty much was it boils down to...people want to believe because they don't have an explaination for the unexplainable...but is the unexplainable really unexplainable? I think that many of the answers in life (like the universe, meaning of life...etc) are so complicated that the human mind cannot even begin to comprehend the answers, so we try to explain them to the best of our mental ability.

 

[The Karma Sound]

We are creatures who need to beleive in something, wholly.
In this human life, on Earth, there are situations that happen, good or bad that cause us to question deeply, is there a God?
I don't beleive Islam because I was born into it. What is the word belief? Definatly not: "Something you trust because you were told so."
I beleive that Karma is God.
Karma is something that resonated in human existance.
I beleive in Dinosaurs. There is evidence. Maybe the shapes were intelligently wrong, but they existed.
The Quran or Bible isn't enough evidence to prove God, this "Man" in the sky who sends us to heaven or hell. Meanwhile he's loving and forgiving.
The understanding. The principles. The nature. The fruit of life, is Karma.
We all understand it somehow. It speaks to us, with a native emotional/psychological language.
We all know Karma differently.
Everyone speaks to God. God speaks to everyone.
Even intelligent people have strict practices in religion but when it comes to "beleif," straight up, their faith can be easily shook.
There are unintelligent people, who lack strong mental capacity, yet still have strong spiritual and emotional potential.
We understand right before our actions, what the results may be.
That's the meaning of the word Karma. Action.
The "Circle" of life is a physical representation of Karma.
God= This Life. Everything.
God Bless.
-Ramayana

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

Dan1584 --
i see, very nice... i've thought of that as well. That thought resulted in another question in my mind. If that really is the reason, anybody with a high enough level of intelligence to realize that the reason they believe in god is simply for hope and comfort would realize that it isn't logical to be believe that something is real just because you do not have hope or comfort without the belief. Lack of hope and comfort doesn't make god real, so it makes no sense to believe that god is real just because of lack of hope. However there are people like myself out there who realize all this yet still believe in god.
[ 15 February 2003: Message edited by: Tr6ai0ls4 ]

 

[rewiiired]

I think people believe in god because: the human mind has a hard time believing that we all sprang from nothing and had no `first cause'; that the universe/multiverse always existed without a definite beginning, and that there isn't some all-powerful, all-knowing, ultimate, higher power and cosmic father figure maintaining order in the cosmos and drawing the moral lines between right and wrong for all of us self-aware entities.

The human intellect cannot, without extreme effort, even begin to grasp the concepts "no beginnings, no ends" -- a universe without an ultimate. For instance, the answer some people have given me when I've asked them why they believe in god is what's known as `the cosmological argument'. The logic goes in this way: as much as the complexity of a watch implies a watch-maker, the complexity and design of the universe implies a creator. Just like the watch, they argue, we are too complex and improbable to come about without someone designing that complexity -- so their must be a "watchmaker", their must be a god. But they only carry it that far, never any farther. If you dare to keep going with this logic, it eventually defeats it's purpose (which is to explain why a god would "have" to exist). To follow the logic further: if our complexity implies a god, why does that god -- who is said to be so complex that the human mind cannot fathom it -- not also imply a creator? In other words, if our complexity implies a god, why doesn't god's complexity imply HIS creator? After all, in possessing far greater complexity than ourselves, his supposed existence would, in accordance with the cosmo-logic, therefore `imply' his creator even more than our much more minute complexity implied his existence.

And by the same logic, wouldn't our creator's creator -- possessing a complexity far greater than our own complexity, and even more unfathomable than our own creator's complexity -- imply a creator as well? Wouldn't this go on forever? Basically. So perhaps it is true, then, that a watch implies a watch-maker. But then also: a watch-maker implies a watch-maker-maker, and a watch-maker-maker implies a watch-maker-maker-maker, and so on, and so on until our poor puny human intellects blow a fuse.

So my theory is this: we cannot comprehend infinity, the absence of beginning and end, the absence of ultimates -- and so we throw all the questions regarding ourselves onto some central, imaginary figure and label it heresy to question that central imaginary figure's existence or consider it futile to do so because it's beyond the capability of our puny human minds.
The monotheists I've been speaking about here often have a way around this, though. Our existence implies god; we need god to exist -- but god doesn't need a creator to exist. When you ask them where god came from, they traditionally have one of two answers, both of which I find very interesting. The first is that god "always was"; the second is that god "self-created".

So even though the cosmological argument works on us and necessitates his existence, his existence cannot be questioned by the same logic: he can do such amazing things as "self-create" or "always exist". Strangely, these are explanations that could've just as easily been applied to every conscious being in the universe. The ability to "self create" or "always exist", used to explain the existence of some supposed god, could just as easily explain the existence of everything in the universe -- and all without the requirement of some central creator. Ask yourself: if one entity can "always exist" or "self create", why can't two -- multiple -- an infinite amount?

Usual answer by monotheists: "you just have to have faith." I dunno, just doesn't do it for me.

People are addicted to the idea of god, and part of the reason may be that we like to feel as though we have at least an inkling of understanding in regards to what life and reality is all about. The idea of god is very useful
in it's vagueness to explain away anything unknown that would otherwise be all the more frightening.

And in that respect -- as an explanation for the unknown -- god has become sort of like an intellectual road block or "dead end" sign. It's an easy way to explain what we cannot presently explain and when we finally can explain that particular element of existence it's been the traditional habit to just push god's place back a little bit. This imaginary god will always occupy areas where science has not yet ventured or that which science has not successfully explained. First Adam and Eve were the first human beings -- but then Darwin came along and pissed everyone off by suggesting that we all evolved from chimps. So now Adam and Eve become chimps in the minds of many. God created the universe, they said, until science came along with the Big Bang and pissed them off -- "well then," many monotheists say, "maybe God's the one who made it go Bang in the first place". They push their god again. And when they hear that scientists can't figure out what happened one millisecond before the big bang because the genesis detonation killed all possible data, be damn sure that they'll insist that's where their god is hiding.

But there might be something to explain what underlies not only the seeming addiction to the god idea, but for the general belief that we need central, dominating authorities in school, in work, in relationships, in the home, in society: it's called "the centralized mind-set."

Some time back I read an article (in an old Omni, I think) about a man named Mitchell Resnick (?), who's a computer scientist at MIT. He says we look at the nature around us -- such as a flock of birds or a school of fish -- and search for one in control (for instance, the bird or fish at the front) when in fact there is no authority. He proposes that this mentality -- what he calls the "centralized mindset" -- is faulty. He feels that leadership isn't even necessary. He believes that orderly patterns can arise without someone leading the way (anarchy, then, may not necessarily be chaos after all). He says that we reinforce this "centralized mindset" by designing elements of society that operate along this dominancy. In rebuttal to this mindset, he is practicing and teaching what he's calling "decentralized" learning.

More importantly, he has a good idea as to why people seem so attached to the idea of a centralized controlling factor, and his words mean much more than he intended them to mean: "The idea of one thing in charge telling others what to do is easier to think about than a system with lots of coordination between lots of autonomous parts. It's also comforting for people to think that someone is in charge. That suggests there might be a reason for things being the way they are."

Now take what he said, all the while keeping the concept of monotheistic religion in mind. Read his words and reflect on the kind of religion that proposes an all-powerful, omnipotent and supposedly male God created the world, draws the lines between right and wrong, tells us where we go when we die and controls our fate during life. I think he couldn't have explained it more accurately: rather than taking the responsibility for what happens in the world unto themselves, people like to praise or lay the blame on some God, some nonexistent controlling or leading factor. It also probably has a lot to do with the fact that we don't like to take responsibility for ourselves and our part in the ongoing creation of the cosmos. It would mean that we are at fault, we are at blame. It would mean that we each lead our own lives, make our own fate, rule our own destinies rather than some centralized deity. I think being aware that we have such a power, and therefore such a reasonability, can be very frightening. So people do what Carl Jung calls "projection" onto some imaginary central authority.

This is mainly an unconscious thing, though, and it probably has a lot to do with the fact that we're a social species. Part of it is instinct, but we also possess self-awareness, so that's no excuse -- it is our super-nature to overcome our nature and nurture.

 

[Mahan Atma]

Some of us believe in God because we have directly experienced God.
BTW, notice that those who characterize the belief in God as unfounded or irrational (as in the post above) almost invariably refer to the traditional, monotheistic, Judeo-Christian version of the all-powerful, all-knowing "father figure" type of God. That's a pretty easy theory to knock down, in my opinion.
Any intelligent discussion on these sorts of questions has to first define what is meant by "God", or else opponents of the concept will simply adopt their own unspoken premises so as to favor their position.

 

[1024]

I'm in agreement with rewiiired on this one. I believe there is a god of infinity, who rules the location of the galaxies, each galaxy has a god who rules the location of the stars within that galaxy. Each star is a spiritual entity, providing energy to the planets, which in themselves are gods.
Basically God is everything.
The gods are free to themselves insomuch as their wish is free, and each god acts as an interface to the one above it and the one below it. I'm assuming this universe is all that there is, without a higher level, buit then maybe there is, who knows.

 

[brilo]

I think many people need something greater than themselves to believe in. I suppose it's comforting to think that a higher power cares about you, or that there is something more to life than surviving and reproducing. How many Christians do you know that don't pray or think about god until their life gets shitty? When they life under control, they don't need support from above, but when life gets tough, they get spiritual.
I personally don't believe in anything. no creator, no universal consciousness, no karma....
Religion is a crutch, and I'd rather walk on my own.

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by Mahan Atma:
Any intelligent discussion on these sorts of questions has to first define what is meant by "God", or else opponents of the concept will simply adopt their own unspoken premises so as to favor their position.

i would argue that the same holds true for those who support the concept.
alasdair

 

[Mahan Atma]

Originally posted by alasdairm:

i would argue that the same holds true for those who support the concept.

Fair enough. Although there may also be something to the claims above that God may be far out of the scope of human understanding.

But we can always try. My own notion/experience of God is something closely related to Jung's collective unconscious. It is a level of consciousness that transcends the human individual, and it also has an intelligence of its own.
I disagree with the notion that God is all-powerful. I think that God works within certain constraints. For example, for there to be good, there must also be evil.

Here's a metaphor I use to understand the situation: God is something like a grand "playwrite" that exists outside of spacetime. The usual conceptual dichotomy of free will and determinism is red herring in this regard. As a playwrite, God has "scripted" the drama of reality -- but outside of time. God divides itself up into separate units of consciousness, and puts them into linear spacetime, where they behave as the actors in this drama.

Thus, there's a way in which the actors have a script to follow (determinism), but at the same time, that "script/destiny" exists outside of time. The actors also have "free will" in the sense that they are parts of God, writing the drama as it unfolds in spacetime.

Thus, God is both playwrite and actor, as well as the audience enjoying this drama. The actors -- as pieces of God -- are writing the script as they go through space time, even though God as a unified intelligence scripts the drama outside of time.

At one level (the deep collective unconscious), the intelligence is aware of all this, but at another level (the individual ego), it creates the illusion of separateness by forcing us to "forget" the divine source from which we've sprung.

I'm not sure this is making as much sense to you as it does in my head, but that's the basic idea.
[ 16 February 2003: Message edited by: Mahan Atma ]

 

[konsept]

Here is a one sentence answer for people of other religions than Christianity.
Why do you NOT believe in God?

 

[rewiiired]

konsept: Well, to be specific this time around, I do not believe in christian god or any one-god theory as I've been able to understand them because the concepts as I understand them don't really explain anything. God isn't implied by my experience of the world, and the reasons people have given -- philosophers I've read and many of those I've talked to -- as to why god has to exist simply does not hold as evidence for his existence in my eyes. It's that simple: I don't see a specific need or reason that there would have to be a god; I don't see anything that implies the existence of a god. The only reason left behind to believe in a god, then, is the reason to believe out of comfort and security -- likely due to familiarity; specifically, the fact that I grew up within a Christian belief structure. Having had that belief system deeply ingrained in my psyche from a young age, that pre-existing mindset would be the easiest one to fall back on. That's not a good enough reason for me to believe in god. So there ya go.

I have, as I've said in previous posts, often asked people what they define as god and they usually only throw out vague descriptions of the being. I've been in enough long, heated arguments over semantics, plain and simple, to know what Mahan Atma stated:

Any intelligent discussion on these sorts of questions has to first define what is meant by `God', or else opponents of the concept will simply adopt their own unspoken premises so as to favor their position.

But I've talked to a lot of people about this: drunk, sober, at college parties, to the old and young. I've read a good deal on the philosophical arguments for and against the god-concept, and did so before taking my stance as an atheist towards this god-concept. From what I've understood through the above, `god' is usually regarded as the supposed:

1) all-knowing (omniscient),
2) all-powerful (omnipotent),
3) all-good (omnibenevolent)
4) creator of the universe (omnicreative first cause) who
5) exists everywhere at once (omnipresence).

To my mind, this is what I am arguing against when I argue against god. Many throw whatever they hold as ultimate in their philosophy -- even if it's something vague -- and call it `god'. I think that complicates matters a bit and makes conversation a bit difficult. So many believe in one god and while all religions call this one god `god', those of a different religious following can veiw this one god drastically differently. Even those within the same religion can veiw this one god drastically differently, while many in any one religion don't really know anything beyond the fact that they believe in something called `god' that their religion states exists.

It's true that the god-ideas I hear are usually bibically-based, and the arguments involve their circular logic, dodging questions, philosophical sleight-of-hand, vague defintions, etc.

Mahan Atma: your idea seems, in the very least, creative, and it makes far more sense to me than most other descriptions of god that I've heard so far (there's been a few others). At least so far, I can respect your idea. More than that, there's a familair ring to it; it's has likeness to the viewpoints expressed to me by some mysterious person I first met when I was young. That and the comparison to Carl Jung's concept of the collective unconscious or objective psyche got my attention, as I have a lot of respect for Jung and have been reading a lot of his material lately.
(Though as a side note, it should be understood that Jung, at least publically and professionally, did not concider the collective unconscious/objective psyche a `world' or `mind' at all, but something more related to instincts handed down genetically to all members of mankind... and therefore not related to the none the less intersting ideas you expressed in the way you seem to be implying).

Not to say I believe your ideas -- I still do not see what truly implies a central, self-aware cosmic agency -- but I am interested in the idea. And interested from where or from whom these ideas derived, or what experience inspired them.
So perhaps those who believe in god would first define what they mean by god, as Atma did, and then describe any personal, first-hand experience they may have ahd with him/her/it, conversation might be more constructive...
Specifically, Atma, I am truly curious as to the nature of your experience.
[ 16 February 2003: Message edited by: rewiiired ]

 

[mobius]

And why couldn't we all be God??
All of us, together, everything = GOD
A sum of all mathematical formulas, probabilities, constants, elements, phases, = 1 universe

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

i look at god as if god is everything...all of material existence is the physical representation of his brain and all occurences in reality are his thoughts. He doesn't have legs feet or arms or stomach or anything like we do. All that is his brain. When you look at it like that all things mentioned like

1) all-knowing (omniscient),
2) all-powerful (omnipotent),
3) all-good (omnibenevolent)
4) creator of the universe (omnicreative first cause) who
5) exists everywhere at once (omnipresence).
seem to apply.

I believe all of those terms are misunderstood. The people who first put those lables on god were alive a long time ago before us. They used metaphors to describe god, because it is difficult to describe something so complex through just regular language. Metaphors are much more expressive. They carry a feeling, an image. They stimulate you to see or understand something much more vividly by exposing you to things that you could relate to.

These metaphors were intended for simple minds.

All-knowing --
Wouldn't you say if you were 100% concious you would know all your own thoughts?

all-powerfull --
He can control his thoughts as he sees fit, this doesn't mean he can make shit appear out of thin air, it just means he can control his thoughts. In your brain there are millions of living cells, each leads their own life unaware of your existence, they do what they do and then they die. You thinking what you're thinking is simply all these brain cells and things in your brain doing what they do, living as individuals.

all-good --
god is perfect, think about the complexity of the universe and all things within it, how perfect it is. Everything is exactly the way it should be, in order for it to work properly. If it wasn't that way, it wouldn't work. Wouldn't you say that "perfect" is kind of like of like all good?

creator of the universe --
god is the universe and everything beyond it, once again picture your brain except this time picture it 10 years ago, think about how much things have changed in it since then, how many new neural passageways were formed, how your train of thought changed, how it grew, cells died and cells were born ( i'm not quite sure about the accuracy of this, but you get the point. It changed). Wouldn't you say that everything that is going on in your brain could be said to be created by you not in the literal sense. Your thought pattern was created by you, not the actual brain cells. But unlike you, god always existed for all infinity forever moving forward, changing, so his brain cells were always existant unlike yours. God is a being of infinity. Something that everybody seems to agree we cannot fully understand.

as for exists everywhere at once --
if god is all of existance wouldn't you say that god exists in every part of existance at once? (including all moments in time)
I have had a personal experience in which i have actually felt gods conciousness in a deep state of meditation. It is something that i cannot describe accurately because it is sort of like being on a drug or having a dream. Once you come down even though you can remember what it is like, you cannot fully remember every detail of exactly what it was because you are not dreaming or on drugs anymore. It felt as if i was everything. There was an unbelievable, over-whelming but yet not uncomfortable physical sensation kind of like ecstacy but much more intense and slightly different in the sense that it felt as if it was natural as opposed to induced by some chemical. Also there was so much more beyond this physical world. It was like a radio with a seemingly infinite amount of frequencies you can tune into with this physical plane a mere range of just a few tens of them. (btw, when i say frequency, i mean of the frequency of the vibration of particles that make up reality). There is so much more, but i dont want to drift off topic any more then I allready have.

The topic being discussed here is why people believe in god. I believe because of what i've said above..
btw, when i was refering to gods body parts (his brain cells, etc..) i dont actually mean what i say. Those statements are just used to give people a better illustration of exactly what it is i'm talking about by comparing god to your own body.

So basically that is my reason for believing what it is I believe. There are times when i think its all just a big delusion, but i stopped caring. I figure it doesn't matter if it is or not. No harm can come from it. Only good.
If you are curious as to how it could be good, this isn't the right thread to discuss that but I would be more then happy to explain, e-mail or im me. My AIM is in my signature and my e-mail is in my profile.

Also, i apologize if there are grammatical or spelling errors in this post, i didnt take much time to write it, it just kind of flowed. If there are errors please excuse my laziness, i'm quite tired right now. I'll come back and read it over plus edit later.
peace and much love to all,
- Tr6ai0ls4 -

 

[nowonmai]

Originally posted by konsept:
Why do you NOT believe in God?

because I don't have the need to... every question I have about existence, whether my own or that of the universe, and about the universe in general, can be answered without recourse to the supernatural
I believe that people are unwilling to accept that they are not the product of an omnipotent 'designer', because that makes us feel alone. also, the existence of a god allows us to have wishful thoughts about afterlife. I mean, it's not a nice thought that after we die there's nothing, so in order to provide the antithesis we conceive of an omnipotent being who is responsible for the creation of reality, and with whom we will eventually join for eternity.
the whole thing has too many holes for me.. gaps which due to our limited persective as humans, we are ill equipped to understand, and thus must write off to 'god'. I'm sorry... not good enough. I believe that logic is as powerful as is needed to understand anything. if an answer to a quaestion can be deduced logically, I find no need to invent something else to answer the same question.

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

Originally posted by nowonmai:
because I don't have the need to...

ummm... do you think that everybody that believes in god believes because they feel the need to ?

 

[nowonmai]

well it's either that or the fact that they have been told that that's the way things are and haven't fully explored the possibilities themselves.
by need, I don't necessarily mean a conscious need, but more a subconscious unwillingness to accept that this is all there is (this being the material reality we exist in)
all theism is based on faith, and faith is the one thing that requires no empirical evidence or logical deductive process

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

do you think that if einstien or any other scientist or inventor such as thomas edison didn't have faith in their beliefs and theories before there was proof didn't just have faith that he or she was right then perhaps they would have never discovered what they did and forever altered the history of humanity?
what is your drive to prove anything come from other then faith that something exists without emperical evidence as you say?
why do you believe that every belief in god requires no deductive process? dont you think that all beliefs were at one point spiritual? think about what people would have thought of you 1000 years ago, if you told em everything is made up of vibrating particles called atoms which have a positive or a negative charge, molecules, chemicals, the earth being round, the elements, other stars and solar systems, gravity, electricity, magnetism??
what do you think they would have called your beliefs other then just spiritual beliefs with no logical deductive process or lack of emperical evidence? They would have just thought that you believe in another god or many gods, or the devil or something along those lines, and yet we know all of these things to be true and proven today. Why? Because people had faith...
thats how i see it at least... if you see something wrong or lacking in this theory, i would appreciate your feedback and intersted in what anybody has to say..

 

[Tr6ai0ls4]

also, i would like to add i have a belief that your thoughts manifest them into reality, whatever you believe will be real for you as it is for anybody else, so if you believe in god and have non-blind faith with a logical deduction and without blind-belief from just being taught god all your life, god will be very real to you and god WILL make your life better, and you WILL be more happy..
Go ahead, try it, experiment scientifically. But you must believe without almost any doubt that he exists, in order for itself to reveal itself to you. See what you find out.. you'll be surprised... promise...

 

[nowonmai]

Originally posted by Tr6ai0ls4:
also, i would like to add i have a belief that your thoughts manifest them into reality, whatever you believe will be real for you as it is for anybody else

put another way:

when the tool you possess is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

and, yes, I agree that we view reality through our own unique perspective, which, in turn is created by our experiences.
my reasoning comes from the fact that, as I have said, I can explain everything around me without the necessity for a god. that and my belief in 'occam's razor' which, simply put, states that the simplest solution is usually the right one.
to coin a real-world example. einstein, during an interview, was asked how he would feel if his theory of general relativity was proved wrong. he replied that he would feel sorry for god, since the theory was correct.

this, to me, is his recognition of the fact that nature tends to follow the path of least action, a principle which has been re-demonstrated over and over, most notably by richard feynmann. I base my belief structure (and yes it is a belief, but not blind faith) on this principle, and based on this, find it more credible that the universe and everything in it came about as the result of chance rather than that there is a onmipotent being/creature which is responsible for its orchestration.

you'll notice that I make a distinction between belief and faith. to me, faith is based on nothing more than faith, with no evidence, whereas a belief can be proved.

my position is really that nothing I have ever experienced gives me cause to believe that god in any form may exist.