Presumably you believe that your god exists? What leads you to suppose this?

Well, if I have to… But let me be clear that I do not put any of this forward as any sort of ‘proof’. I have no expectation that my experience has any relevance to a bunch of people on the internet. In any case…

1) Inner conviction. For as long as I can remember, I have had a sense of God’s existence.

2) Experience. I have had personal experiences that I interpret as indicating the existence of a god.

3) Reinforcement. My social experiences in life (family, friends, etc.) have enhanced my sense of the characteristics of the God I believe in, as opposed to contradicting them (as some people might – justifiably – describe).

4) Philosophy. There are elements of both the teleological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God that provoke a positive response in me. I am not ‘convinced’ by them, but equally, I do not think that they can be dismissed as easily as someone like Dawkins has made it seem.

5) Interpretation. Many of you demand ‘evidence’, but as I expressed in a thread some time ago, sometimes I think we are looking at exactly the same thing and simply reading it differently. Some scientists look at the world/universe and see nothing but empirical data, while others look and see the evidence for God. Obviously, though not a scientist, I would take a similar line. Likewise mathematics. Some see the Fibonacci number as a mathematical incidental. I, like many before me, see it as indicative of a divine reality.

6) Who/what God is. When some polemicists write about God, they end up describing a concept I don’t recognise. The God I believe in doesn’t present the same sort of cognitive difficulties that those people often say turn them off the idea.

Ultimately, though, it’s not like belief is absolute. I have gone through long periods where I have not ‘believed’. The people I like best tend to be ‘agnostic theists’ or ‘agnostic atheists’, and even ‘agnostic agnostics’. I don’t tend to trust absolutists in any camp.

I think a lot of the problem comes from some of the language used by the “anti” crowd.

I don’t believe in Allah but I would never dream of talking to a Muslim friend or acquaintance using offensive language like “sky pixies”, “lies”, “fairy tales” etc. That’s just deliberately offensive and obtuse –

I’m certainly not part of a ‘crowd’, yet I do see belief in a ‘deity’ as exactly comparable with a belief in fairies. A cursory study of anthropology shows that humans traditionally ‘explained’ phenomena away by assigning agency to anthropomorphised ‘spirits’, animals, spirits of departed Chieftains etc. I say this neither to be offensive or obtuse. It perfectly and literally reflects my understanding of the development of faith and religion. There is a trend of sneering though, I agree, yet not limited to atheists, rather ‘anti-‘ whateverists, including angry, self-righteous theists. This tone of discourse must’ve come from Across The Pond of course, as we adopt nearly all things American, from skateboards to language 😉

*Edit:

This is more or less what I was going to say next. Does it actually matter whether or not God exists? Think about that carefully before answering.

That really rather depends upon which ‘God’ we are talking about? If it’s that smiting, testy, patriarchal one who will toast me and my loved ones over sulphur forever for not believing in Him … Then one might surely see that it would matter enormously to anyone who holds an ounce of care?

Experience. I have had personal experiences that I interpret as indicating the existence of a god.

What was that, then?

The reason I focus on that is because the rest of it just reads like you trying to convince yourself, TBH…

@Saxonrider

that was an interesting and thoughtful post, thanks.

Would a football lover be offended by that?

so what if they are? being offended doesn’t do anything, you don’t suddenly catch bad cat aids as a result of offence. At what point did stick and stones, become no longer valid? folks don’t have the same likes as you, so what? they choose to express their opinion? so what, it only has any effect if you respect their standpoint or the validity of their argument, if you live your life seeking validation from strangers then you are always going be upset.

Part of the problem of discussing religion is that the religious can’t agree what religion is. So someone questioning their religion might say “you think X but there’s all this evidence against that” and their response will be “oh, I don’t believe X, I believe Y”.

What was that, then?

The reason I focus on that is because the rest of it just reads like you trying to convince yourself, TBH…

Fair enough, but experience is inherently personal, and so not something I would be inclined to talk about. I understand that this means anything I say further about my own faith perspective will seem somewhat weakened, but I just have to accept that.

If you and I knew each other, and were having this conversation in person, and you asked, I might be more inclined to talk about it. Not that it’s earth-shattering, or would even be remotely convincing; just that it’s particular to me, if you know what I mean.

SaxonRider you elegantly express an intelligently considered belief, an understanding of why it could not be proved, and a dislike of absolutists.

This still leaves difficulty as we live in a world where religious absolutists are resurgent and more significant by the day, and where many theists feel their beliefs should not only be respected, (which is fine if they are not adversely affecting others) but should be accepted as true by others.

how do we deal with this?

Stoatsbrother

This still leaves difficulty as we live in a world where religious absolutists are resurgent and more significant by the day, and where many theists feel their beliefs should not only be respected, (which is fine if they are not adversely affecting others) but should be accepted as true by others.

how do we deal with this?

Stoning. Obviously.

Fair enough, but experience is inherently personal, and so not something I would be inclined to talk about.

I suspect that you suspect it’s veracity. Do you test it?

This still leaves difficulty as we live in a world where religious absolutists are resurgent and more significant by the day,

evidence? 😆

on the one hand, there are some nutters in the middle east. on the other, Atheism in the west is increasing in prevalence all the time. I’m not sure religious absolutists are any more of a problem now than they were 25, 50 or 250 years ago.

A lot of people brought up atheist seem to have a pretty sparse knowledge of the history of religion, the contents of the bible, and the views of any particular church either historically or today. Consequently they are arguing from false assumptions. Anyone who has studied these things extensively would be quite rightly annoyed.

I thought this was an interesting quote, because the same could probably be said of the knowledge that people brought up in one religion have of other religions, even relatively close ones.

How many Anglican Christians know anything much about Mormon Christians?

on the one hand, there are some nutters in the middle east

Have you been watching the race for the republican nomination for US president? There were plenty of religious nutters on show there with way more potential for harm than in the middle east.

evidence?

on the one hand, there are some nutters in the middle east. on the other, Atheism in the west is increasing in prevalence all the time. I’m not sure religious absolutists are any more of a problem now than they were 25, 50 or 250 years ago.

Has there not been a rise in the religious right in the States over the last couple of decades?

doris5000 just look at the laws on sexuality and approaches to education going through the USA in the South and Midwest at the moment.

Fair enough, but experience is inherently personal, and so not something I would be inclined to talk about.

I’m happy to give an example here to give an idea. Often there isn’t one huge example but lots and lots of smaller ones that give a cumulative picture. I realise this opens me up to ridicule but this discussion is good so here goes.

At one time I was arranging transport of food to displaced folks camps in Chechnya. We hadn’t managed for a couple of weeks because of a total curfew so stocks were getting low. So I arranged a vehicle, got up very very early and spent a while praying that the road would be protected by angels and we would get through. I looked up and all I could see either side of the road was huge tall angels. I confess I nearly shat myself

I looked up again and this time what I saw was lampposts. However I had zero problems getting through all the check points that day and ours was the only vehicle that I saw out

So, you take your pick. You can take the view that we were protected or you can take the view that I saw lampposts and got lucky. Both viewpoints work and lots of stuff that happens in life is like that. There is no absolute proof but when you take a particular viewpoint it is consistently reinforced but could equally be refuted

@Saxonrider

Without wishing to probe too insensitively on a public forum where you might feel over-exposed, here’s a thought.

Is it possible, do you suppose, that the quality of “profundity” is just something that the mind attaches to a thought or an experience, like a sort of reinforcement, for it’s own purposes? That is to say, not a homogenous part of the thing itself, but a sort of added quality for the minds’ own reason (which may not necessarily be benign, per se)?

(No answer required).

Has there not been a rise in the religious right in the States over the last couple of decades?

I don’t think there has. Pat Robertson et al have been preaching their crap forever, it’s not a new thing. In fact there seems to have been a decline in the number of Christians, and an increase in the number of atheists:

America’s Changing Religious Landscape

There are some deplorable laws going through at the moment, but is the situation any worse than when Reagan was in power and the Moral Majority were on the case?

It’s only 40 years since Roe vs Wade and yet now the states talking about outlawing abortion are outliers. I’d say it’s getting better, overall.

Stoatsbrother, I would say that, while I believe in an absolute truth, I also believe – as I said yesterday at some point – that such a truth is better conceived as a cosmic rubber band than a rigid fence. In other words, anyone that fails to acknowledge the existential struggles faced by every human being, and respect people for who they are and where they are at in life’s struggles, is someone that should either be invited to re-consider, or face rejection.

So, for example, the Islamo-fascism we see represented by Al-Qaeda and Daesh, is an appalling abuse of what it is to be human, and there is no other response to such groups but rejection. Wherever there is genuine intolerance, it needs to be combatted. But I guess I think that, if we understood – those of faith and those of no faith – that we stood on the same side, then we could more effectively identify and combat abuse and intolerance wherever and whenever it reared its head.

Beyond that, stoatsbrother, I just don’t know. I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.

sometimes I think we are looking at exactly the same thing and simply reading it differently.

This is exactly it. In other words, truth is subjective.

To the atheists – does it matter if you know why the universe was created? It may matter to you, it may not.

Don’t make me bring up the episode of Friends again.

I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.

.. as someone famous once said …

You can take the view that we were protected or you can take the view that I saw lampposts and got lucky. Both viewpoints work and lots of stuff that happens in life is like that. There is no absolute proof but when you take a particular viewpoint it is consistently reinforced but could equally be refuted

The problem with any case of being protected by God and/angels is what about when people are killed or injured? Was God absent?

A friend (an ordained doctor of theology) would say that about people who would pray for a parking space or for help finding their car keys – if God will intervene for such a trivial matter, why not for natural disasters?

@Mr Woppit, I indeed acknowledge that you could be right.

There may well be a purely psychological explanation to how and why I interpret experience the way I do, but think that two further points emerge:

1) I would never hold such experiences up as any sort of proof, seeing as they are so subjective, and

2) I don’t think that a psychological/scientific explanation for something necessarily negates a spiritual impetus behind it.

As with leffeboy’s post just above yours, I would maintain that there are two ways in which such experience might be taken, but fully admit that it is legitimate to identify only the scientific or psychological.

Yeahbut molgrips. You have just contradicted yourself. How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?
How do you define what is Good? (especially if there is no divine arbitrator)

The problem with any case of being protected by God and/angels is what about when people are killed or injured? Was God absent?

Don’t know why God sometimes intervenes and sometimes doesn’t but I don’t think that because I don’t know that means there isn’t a God. The extension of that argument is that if God is always going to intervene then he is always going to intervene whether or not we like it and therefore we have no choice. Or if the choices are left to us then people will always get their parking space.

I don’t know and it is in a big bundle of stuff that I don’t know and which troubles me but I don’t consider it proof of non-existance

So, for example, the Islamo-fascism we see represented by Al-Qaeda and Daesh, is an appalling abuse of what it is to be human

Flipping humanists! Always think they know better…

(As a humanist, I think I know better)

Molgrips quoted:

I think we all just need to stand up to hatred, violence, and oppression together, and get on with pursuing what is good and true in the world.

I understand (after frequenting many forums/speaking to others) that we (human population) by and large do, as individuals (and groups) pursue what is ‘good and true’. Though many have fundamentally/radically differing ideas as to what is ‘good and true’. <————- “There’sya problem!’ (Mythbusters voice)

Yeahbut molgrips. You have just contradicted yourself. How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?
How do you define what is Good? (especially if there is no divine arbitrator)

I would tweak what molgrips said by saying our perception of truth is subjective.

And that being the case, what is good needs no external definition, and only our willingness to assent to it.

So, for example, the I am struck with awe by the implications of the golden ration, and so is the atheist mathematician. I am reminded of God because of it, and he or she is reminded of the incredible beauty of nature. It is then incumbent on both of us to respond by pursuing the good it has inspired, maybe by being an even more enthusiastic scientist, or a better poet, or a more diligent builder, or whatever.

Good has done its job, and we have done ours. And nobody got killed! 🙂

I find this thread interesting. Interesting for a few reasons really. I have had a belief in something most of my life although this has waxed and waned. I have had concerns with the role of religion in the formal structures in our country e.g. schools, government etc… I am not keen on organised religion or the politicisation of religion either.

My problem on STW in particular, is that I do have a particular issue with militant attitudes towards people with differing beliefs/philosophies. I cannot stand intolerant aggressive atheists or religious believers. In previous times, I would have been most aware of the forcefully religious but I have found that here that atheists have been almost vicious in the way they converse to and about people with belief and see it as the root of all evil – despite evidence to the contrary.

As a result, I don’t really bother engaging much anymore. I don’t think people’s beliefs are much likely to change as a result of sharing views and experiences and frankly my conviction is not strong enough for me to defend or support.

How many religious threads do you need Saxon ?

Will you stop when its a holy trinity 😉

I do have a particular issue with militant attitudes towards people with differing beliefs/philosophies.

I know what you mean some folk tell me I will burn in hell if i disagree with them and dont do as it says in a book that they have faith ins ……imagine that level of intolerance eh.

I promise, Junkyard, that this will be my last for a while. I’m sure there is some news somewhere that I need to catch up on.

How do you pursue truth if it is subjective?

In a personal way, as SaxonRider, PerchyPanther and others have.

I don’t think people’s beliefs are much likely to change as a result of sharing views and experiences

I don’t do this to try and change people’s beliefs. I do it to try and get people to consider other people’s points of view, and to be nice.

I would tweak what molgrips said by saying our perception of truth is subjective.

Well that’s a fundamental question isn’t it? Is there any such thing as absolute truth? Does such a concept even make sense?

Take quantum physics*. Is the cat alive or dead? Can it be both? Does it make any sense to define the health of the cat in this situation given that it is unknowable?

* Actually I should call myself out here because the cat thing is not meant to be a trite philosophical question along the lines of one-handed clapping and so on. It is simply a layman’s illustration of a concept. I studied Quantum Physics for three years and this got a single mention at the end of a sentence. Quantum effects are described using hard maths. But you could start using the existence of these concepts to pull at the strings of what we see in our everyday lives, even though the actual equations do match up with what we see at our macroscopic level.

Of more use actually is the wave/particle thing. People boggle at this because it goes against common sense, but what use is common sense when describing something that’s anything but common? It is simply not possible to determine if a photon is a wave or a particle without interacting with it. So if you don’t interact – what is it?

If you look at the world through religious eyes, you see God – if through atheist eyes, you see simply unanswered scientific questions. So which is it?

Both and.

.. and what?

If you look at the world through religious eyes, you see God – if through atheist eyes, you see simply unanswered scientific questions. So which is it?

That reminds me of a book I read long ago (Anam Cara – a Book of Celtic Wisdom)

‘Styles of Vision’

http://swatura-anamcara.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/styles-of-vision.html

I may be skeptical and dismissive about many beliefs, but when we are talking about human natureI’ll be the first to admit there is much ‘truth and beauty’ inspiring (and inspired by) ‘spiritual’ philosophy.

It’s a rhetorical question btw, not looking for an answer. The point is that we can’t know, so why not just go with your feelings?

But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth? Surely truth by definition is something absolute.
As Gandalf said (in another context admittedly) “Then it is no longer white”

But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth?

The definition of the word ‘truth’ is the issue.

Quoted this before, but it’s relevant:

“I checked it very thoroughly,” said the computer, “and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what the question is.”
“But it was the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything,” howled Loonquawl.
“Yes,” said Deep Thought with the air of one who suffers fools gladly, “but what actually is it?”
A slow stupefied silence crept over the men as they stared at the computer and then at each other.
“Well, you know, it’s just Everything … Everything …” offered Phouchg weakly.

Also this

The chances of finding out what’s really going on in the universe are so remote, the only thing to do is hang the sense of it and keep yourself occupied

But if truth is subjective, in what way is it then truth? Surely truth by definition is something absolute.
As Gandalf said (in another context admittedly) “Then it is no longer white”

Again, it’s not often clear whether talking about either ‘fact’ or ‘truth.’

(Mom). ‘Jane, who stole a biscuit?’
(Jane) ‘John did!! John stole a biscuit!

Might be the truth. Might not be. Follow the crumbs…

God is Truth

Crumbs becoming more difficult to follow. What if the crumbs lead all the way back to an early hominid eating a funky mushroom and worshipping a rock? What if the crumbs then lead from there to a a real-life proto-Life of Brian, where one couldn’t hardly move for ‘prophets’? What if …. God is The Crumbs! 😯

And that’s fact!

Hoenir