Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do you believe what you believe?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1 of 108 (226280)
07-25-2005 4:15 PM


When it comes down to it, our individual beliefs are a choice based on evidence presented to us. Some people choose to believe in the Bible, the Koran, or other holy book, as literal truth. Others interpret their holy books non-literally. Some people don't follow any religion.
How did you make your choice? What were your reasons?
I don't want this to turn into a Christan bashing or atheist bashing or anything-else bashing thread. Please be respectful and remember that, whatever another person believes, they are entitled to that belief.
I would, however, like us to be able to question each other's reasons for their beliefs in a mature and respectful manner.
This would probably fit best in Faith and Belief.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 2:34 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 07-26-2005 2:47 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 5 by Parasomnium, posted 07-26-2005 4:42 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 8 by nator, posted 07-26-2005 9:09 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 07-26-2005 11:25 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 34 by Andya Primanda, posted 07-27-2005 7:58 AM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 59 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2005 1:46 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 03-30-2006 11:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 108 (226343)
07-26-2005 12:28 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3 of 108 (226359)
07-26-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-25-2005 4:15 PM


I’ll have a go at this. I have a great deal of difficulty with the Atheistic idea that we have just evolved to the point we are at today by random chance and that there is no there is no metaphysical design to all of this. When I consider this world, even aside from the existence of sentient beings, I see design everywhere. This does not constitute any proof, but it comes down to deciding which is more likely; random chance or design. When I have to answer that question for myself, and then combining that with the question of why there is anything at all, I have to conclude that metaphysical design is by far the most likely answer.
I have no trouble with the theory of evolution, nor any other form of science. Science has done an incredible job of uncovering the secrets of the natural world. However, the more I read of particle behaviour and cosmology, the more evident it appears to me that theists have it right.
I also have trouble with Deism. I think that it is fairly obvious from evolutionary theory that sentient beings are relatively recent arrivals on this planet. I have a great deal of difficulty believing that consciousness, our sense of self and our moral code evolved all on their own. I have to believe that this creator must have intervened at some point in the evolutionary process to bring about sentient beings.
From what I have learned from evolution on this forum it has not been a consistent and gradual process. I understand that evolutionary progress has been very gradual for long periods and then there has been a period of relatively rapid change. I would tend to think that if evolution was occurring without any external interference the progress would more likely be gradual and consistent.
Occam’s Razor suggests that we are to look for the simplest conclusion. I know that there are many who will disagree with this, but when all the above is considered I believe that the simplest and most likely answer is that we live in a universe that has been created by something or someone that is outside of our physical universe.
As I came to the belief that I was a created being I had to decide for myself what I believed about this creator. I have always felt that there is something in me that isn’t aging and isn’t physical. I remember standing in Oxford Street in London years ago. It was right before Christmas and there were thousands of people crowding the streets. I remember standing there and being struck with the fact that I observed everyone and everything in my own unique way, and that everyone one was I, in the sense that we all look at the world from our own unique perspective. There is something beyond the world of our physical senses.
As a Theist I have to come to my own conclusion about which if any religion I will adhere to. I initially accepted the Christian faith after reading CS Lewis and then getting involved with the Christian church. Since then my life experiences and further reading have confirmed for me that I made the right decision. It is a faith issue as there is no empirical proof of Theism let alone Christianity, but I am convinced that Basic Christianity contains the basic truths of our existence.
I realize that this post is very scattered and that it isn’t going to convince anyone of anything, but you asked and I just felt like answering.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2005 4:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 07-26-2005 4:50 AM GDR has replied
 Message 7 by CK, posted 07-26-2005 6:07 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 96 by Dubious Drewski, posted 03-29-2006 5:08 PM GDR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 4 of 108 (226363)
07-26-2005 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-25-2005 4:15 PM


I know you don't want us to debate each other's beliefs, and that is not my intention, but my experience is essentially the opposite of GDR's.
I was "born and raised" a Christian, but as I looked at the world around me, I came to realize that it is explained much better by physical processes than by the woo-woo of the "metaphysical". To me, Occam's Razor suggests leaving the "unknown entity" out of our explanations.
I am not saying that there is nothing beyond our consciousness - just that we can never be conscious of anything beyond our consciousness.
(With all due respect, GDR. )

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2005 4:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 5 of 108 (226382)
07-26-2005 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-25-2005 4:15 PM


My reasons
Rahvin writes:
How did you make your choice? What were your reasons?
I was raised in a Christian environment and went to Christian schools. At an early age I already thought the sloppy reasoning of religious thinking was suspect. When I was exposed to science classes, I became convinced that nature was far more beautiful and interesting, and above all far more logical, without the fairy tale explanations of religion.
Rahvin writes:
[...] whatever another person believes, they are entitled to that belief.
I have to disagree with this. Normally I don't have any qualms over what other people choose to believe. But we have had a raving religious nut here in the Netherlands who butchered the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. The sentencing in his trial is due today. (In fact, it's due at about the time I'm writing this.) During his trial, it became clear that he commited this murder because of his stern belief that all those who do not acknowledge Allah's truth, do not deserve to live. He said he acted out of religious motives and would do the exact same thing, given the chance.
That's one belief I think no one is entitled to, especially not so if they really act on it and kill someone for it. The only way to deal with such a person is to remove them permanently from society. I am opposed to the death penalty, so I think a life imprisonment is the only option in this case.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2005 4:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 6 of 108 (226387)
07-26-2005 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by GDR
07-26-2005 2:34 AM


GDR writes:
I have a great deal of difficulty with the Atheistic idea that we have just evolved to the point we are at today by random chance and that there is no there is no metaphysical design to all of this. When I consider this world, even aside from the existence of sentient beings, I see design everywhere.
You forget that random chance isn't the only factor in evolution. Indeed randomness alone would very unlikely lead to what we see in living nature, but in combination with natural selection, it's an excellent explanation for it.
You say you see design everywhere. Well, so do I. There is design in living nature. But you go further and draw the unwarranted conclusion that design implies intelligence, and an active designer. I don't think that's necessary at all. If two organisms have to compete for limited resources, then the one whose 'design' better enables it to get hold of those resources, is more likely to win and have its design propagated. It's a very simple mindless process that can nevertheless enhance design.
GDR writes:
[...] it comes down to deciding which is more likely; random chance or design. When I have to answer that question for myself, and then combining that with the question of why there is anything at all, I have to conclude that metaphysical design is by far the most likely answer.
As can be gleaned from what I wrote above, I think you present a false dichotomy here. Random chance does not preclude design. I think random chance and natural selection are one way to produce design. Another way is intelligence. The big difference between natural design and intelligent design is that natural design would not have foresight, or a plan underlying it, whereas intelligent design most likely would. Since we see a lot of strange, or even stupid design in living nature, seemingly devoid of any plan, I think intelligent design is not likely the cause of it.
GDR writes:
From what I have learned from evolution on this forum it has not been a consistent and gradual process. I understand that evolutionary progress has been very gradual for long periods and then there has been a period of relatively rapid change. I would tend to think that if evolution was occurring without any external interference the progress would more likely be gradual and consistent.
Here are a few possibilities that can explain a sudden surge in evolutionary development:
If a big rock hits the earth and finishes off about ninety percent of life, then a lot of niches are left empty to be filled with new life. Since a lot of design has been 'discarded' as it were, solutions for life's problems will have to be re-invented. The randomness of mutations will ensure that some solutions will look like something that's been tried before, and others will be radically different.
And if something radically new is 'invented' by evolution, something like multicellularity for instance, or a backbone, a whole range of new ways of life can be explored by evolution. So, not only the existing niches provide a boost, but also all kinds of new possibilities are opened up, creating niches that weren't there before. Needless to say that these new niches only add to the boost.
GDR writes:
Occam’s Razor suggests that we are to look for the simplest conclusion. I know that there are many who will disagree with this, but when all the above is considered I believe that the simplest and most likely answer is that we live in a universe that has been created by something or someone that is outside of our physical universe.
But aren't you introducing a new, more complex entity here? An entity that needs an explanation of it own? The entity you propose may seem simple and likely, because it can be formulated rather concisely, but when you really think about it, it only adds to the mystery, and you are no nearer to an explanation at all, quite the opposite in fact.

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 2:34 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 11:11 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 7 of 108 (226402)
07-26-2005 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by GDR
07-26-2005 2:34 AM


No Occam's Razor does not support what you are saying. you should pop over to the "The intelligent Designer" thread where we are trying to discuss such issues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 2:34 AM GDR has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 8 of 108 (226427)
07-26-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-25-2005 4:15 PM


I was raised in a Catholic household in a very christian locale, although nobody in my house ever read the Bible or talked about religion at all at home. Certainly nobody seemed like they were trying to become a better person; mostly us kids were taught in CCD to not do a long list of things so we wouldn't sin, and thus go to hell.
I stopped attending church almost immediately upon entering university and although I had a slight feeling of dread that something terrible would happen to me, it never did.
I believed in the Christian God until my early twenties when I started to learn about other religions and also non-theistic philosophies and world views. Gradually, I came to the place of agnosticism through logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2005 4:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 9 of 108 (226454)
07-26-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Parasomnium
07-26-2005 4:50 AM


Parasomnium writes:
I was raised in a Christian environment and went to Christian schools. At an early age I already thought the sloppy reasoning of religious thinking was suspect. When I was exposed to science classes, I became convinced that nature was far more beautiful and interesting, and above all far more logical, without the fairy tale explanations of religion.
Frankly I agree that there is a great deal of sloppy reasoning within the Christian community. I am going to get Faith upset but I find that the literalist approach to the faith not to be compatible with reason. On the other hand I find that Christianity as explained by people like GK Chesterton and CS Lewis beautiful, interesting and logical which doesn't preclude in any way the fact that nature is beautiful, interesting and logical.
Parasomnium writes:
You forget that random chance isn't the only factor in evolution. Indeed randomness alone would very unlikely lead to what we see in living nature, but in combination with natural selection, it's an excellent explanation for it.
You say you see design everywhere. Well, so do I. There is design in living nature. But you go further and draw the unwarranted conclusion that design implies intelligence, and an active designer. I don't think that's necessary at all. If two organisms have to compete for limited resources, then the one whose 'design' better enables it to get hold of those resources, is more likely to win and have its design propagated. It's a very simple mindless process that can nevertheless enhance design.
You see design in living nature but then go further and draw the unwarranted conclusion that design implies natural selection and random chance. It cuts both ways. I didn't actually claim that a designer is necessary, but I have come to the conclusion that the position that this world has a designer is far more likely than the position that it doesn't.
Parasomnium writes:
And if something radically new is 'invented' by evolution, something like multicellularity for instance, or a backbone, a whole range of new ways of life can be explored by evolution. So, not only the existing niches provide a boost, but also all kinds of new possibilities are opened up, creating niches that weren't there before. Needless to say that these new niches only add to the boost.
You have given us a naturalist explanation of how it could have occurred. Frankly I don't have anywhere near sufficient knowledge to debate that, so I am prepared to accept what you say as correct and that it could have occurred that way. Metaphysical manipulation is another possible explanation however, so once again we have to choose between the two. I frankly find the metaphysical explanation far more compelling, whereas you chose the naturalist explanation.
GDR writes:
Occam’s Razor suggests that we are to look for the simplest conclusion. I know that there are many who will disagree with this, but when all the above is considered I believe that the simplest and most likely answer is that we live in a universe that has been created by something or someone that is outside of our physical universe.
Parasomniun writes:
But aren't you introducing a new, more complex entity here? An entity that needs an explanation of it own? The entity you propose may seem simple and likely, because it can be formulated rather concisely, but when you really think about it, it only adds to the mystery, and you are no nearer to an explanation at all, quite the opposite in fact.
There is mystery no matter which choice you make. For example you attempted to explain the surge in evolution by a comet hitting the planet as one possible explanation but there would be many other possibilities. As a Theist I can simply state that there is a metaphysical designer and we don't need to know anything more about him. Science is concerned only with the physical. From a scientific point of view it is the simplest solution. Science carries on studying the natural and the philosophers and the theologians can study the metaphysical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Parasomnium, posted 07-26-2005 4:50 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Parasomnium, posted 07-26-2005 5:12 PM GDR has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 108 (226458)
07-26-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rahvin
07-25-2005 4:15 PM


quote:
...Our individual beliefs are a choice based on evidence presented to us.
I disagree with this. People don't have complete control over their beliefs. I have once or twice challenged people to choose to believe that the earth is flat. Not simply state the earth is flat, nor act as though they believe the earth is flat, but to actually, sincerely believe in their heart that the earth is flat. I doubt that many people can actually willfully do this.
I never chose to be an atheist. I fought against the loss of my faith. If I had my choice, I would probably still be a Christian today. But all the "facts" that supposedly supported the existence of God turned out to be false; nothing in the world required a belief in God to explain it; the world is pretty explanable without a belief in God. I was simply forced to confront the fact that "God" is simply an unnecessary addition that explains nothing -- I was forced to confront the fact that the only reason I ever accepted that there was a God is because people just told me. I was pretty much forced to accept that I don't believe that God exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rahvin, posted 07-25-2005 4:15 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by 1.61803, posted 07-26-2005 2:01 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 11 of 108 (226492)
07-26-2005 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Chiroptera
07-26-2005 11:25 AM


good post.
I agree with you...we can squint our eyes and stomp our feet and try to will ourselves to believe something, but if the evidence is such that defys belief we are compelled to place our confidence in the facts and the evidence that supports those facts.
Ignorance is bliss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 07-26-2005 11:25 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 07-26-2005 2:40 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 12 of 108 (226493)
07-26-2005 2:01 PM


I was raised as a Protestant Christian. My family is filled with Biblical literalists, and I was raised as such.
As I grew up, I saw a mountain of scientific evidence, observable facts, showing that the Biblical account of history could not possibly have happened without God going through a great deal of trouble to cover it all up. It just seems dishonest for God to create the universe so that it looks, for instance, to be a certain age by all manner of evidence, and then tell us that it's not. I also saw various Christians behaving in a very un-Christ-like manner, using biblical passages and a literal interpretation to justify all manner of horrible crimes. I saw that the hyporitical religious leaders of Jesus' day are still present today.
I realized that I couldn't take the bible literally. I still believe in God, but I believe Him to be the loving, merciful God described by Jesus. I believe the atrocities of the Bible were attributed to God by men who needed a justification for their evil actions, and knew that no one would speak out against God's Will, whether it really was His Will or not. Just like Islamic terrorists, or Christians who murder abortionists.
So science and atrocities in the name of religion are what swayed me from my literalist upbringing. The root of my beliefs now is a faith in a loving, forgiving God. It's not rational - I have no real evidence for His existance, and I believe the Bible to be just an old book with some really good lessons mixed in with the rest. I choose to believe in Him only becuase of personal experiences, and the fact that the good lessons of the Bible are undeniably real and good, even if the events never happened.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 3:24 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 108 (226504)
07-26-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by 1.61803
07-26-2005 2:01 PM


Re: good post.
I suppose that it is possible to exert some control on one's beliefs, mainly by refusing to examine deeply opposing facts or arguments. But anyone who engages in this sort of willful ignorance must already be plagued by some kind of doubts, in my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by 1.61803, posted 07-26-2005 2:01 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 14 of 108 (226515)
07-26-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rahvin
07-26-2005 2:01 PM


Rahvin writes:
So science and atrocities in the name of religion are what swayed me from my literalist upbringing. The root of my beliefs now is a faith in a loving, forgiving God. It's not rational - I have no real evidence for His existance, and I believe the Bible to be just an old book with some really good lessons mixed in with the rest. I choose to believe in Him only becuase of personal experiences, and the fact that the good lessons of the Bible are undeniably real and good, even if the events never happened.
I'm not a literalist but I do believe that the Bible is more than just an old book. I believe that many writers were truly inspired to write it. I accept the Bible as being truthful but not necessarily literally true. Take the creation story for example. If read literally a story about a talking snake is just an interesting fable, but if read metaphorically the truth that is told is of timeless importance. (It is actually interesting to note that Gen 1 gives a sequence of creation that is similar to evolutionary theory.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 07-26-2005 2:01 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rahvin, posted 07-26-2005 5:43 PM GDR has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 15 of 108 (226540)
07-26-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by GDR
07-26-2005 11:11 AM


Natural versus metaphysical
GDR writes:
{paraphrasing me} You see design in living nature but then go further and draw the unwarranted conclusion that design implies natural selection and random chance.
No, I disagree. I didn't say that design implies natural selection and random chance. Those are two principles that we can observe to simply happen in nature, without the need for an implication from design. What I said was that design does not necessarily imply intelligence, there is another possible way in which design can arise, as I explained.
GDR writes:
I didn't actually claim that a designer is necessary, but I have come to the conclusion that the position that this world has a designer is far more likely than the position that it doesn't.
If you can back that up by quantifying the likelihood of both positions, then we have something interesting to discuss, otherwise I'm afraid it's just gut feeling, no offence intended.
GDR writes:
You have given us a naturalist explanation of how it could have occurred. Frankly I don't have anywhere near sufficient knowledge to debate that, so I am prepared to accept what you say as correct and that it could have occurred that way. Metaphysical manipulation is another possible explanation however, so once again we have to choose between the two. I frankly find the metaphysical explanation far more compelling, whereas you chose the naturalist explanation.
The difference is that "finding the metaphysical explanation far more compelling" is once more an expression of gut feeling, whereas "chosing the naturalist explanation" has a firm basis in evidence.
I wrote:
quote:
The entity you propose may seem simple and likely, because it can be formulated rather concisely, but when you really think about it, it only adds to the mystery, and you are no nearer to an explanation at all, quite the opposite in fact.
And you answered:
There is mystery no matter which choice you make.
We may both start with a mystery, but again there is a difference: science attempts - succesfully, I might add - to unravel the mystery, whereas the "metaphysical explanation" isn't really an explanation at all. If it doesn't add to the mystery, it certainly does nothing to lessen it, and, worst of all, there is no way we can test this "explanation" to see if it has any real merit.
GDR writes:
For example you attempted to explain the surge in evolution by a comet hitting the planet as one possible explanation but there would be many other possibilities.
Of course there may be more possibilities, but it doesn't make sense to make them up if there is not a shred of evidence for them. A comet or asteroid is only considered if if it suggested by evidence such as a discernible crater, or something more indirect like the KT-boundary.
GDR writes:
As a Theist I can simply state that there is a metaphysical designer and we don't need to know anything more about him.
Well, you can simply state anything of course, but what use is it if you don't know whether what you state has any connection with reality? And why on earth do you say that we don't need to know anything more about the metaphysical designer? It's not as if ignorance is a goal, is it?
GDR writes:
Science carries on studying the natural and the philosophers and the theologians can study the metaphysical.
Indeed. Science studies something external to itself, something it doesn't define itself, something with an independent existence. Theologians on the other hand (I would leave philosophy out of this), only study their own made up stories. What's the use of that?

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 11:11 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by GDR, posted 07-26-2005 5:50 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024