Why This Belief?

The question is Why Belief, and then more to the point; why Christianity instead of something else.I guess before I can answer Why Belief I’ll have to outline just what it is that I believe.I became a Christian because after many years of not considering the question I came to conclusion that the Christianity at its core was true. I believe that the Bible is truthful, but not necessarily literally true. My understanding of ancient Hebrew literature is that most writing was metaphorical. When you read the New Testament it seems that the bulk of Christ’s teachings were by parable. (Actually having said that I find it very interesting that the first chapter of Genesis very closely parallels evolutionary theory if you discard the notion that it is talking about literal days. For the 6000 year group I suggest you look at 2nd Peter where he talks about how a day to the Lord is like a thousand years.)As a Christian I don’t believe that other faiths are completely wrong. I frankly found it very reaffirming to read the Book Of Buddha. The original Buddha preached the very same message that Christ gave us which is to love your neighbour and beyond that even, to love your enemy. Christianity does proclaim the idea that Christ was God incarnate. In many ways Christ completed other faiths in existence at that time. (Islam came along later.)As I said, I don’t believe that other faiths are completely wrong and frankly I don’t accept the idea that there are nothing but Christians in heaven. I believe that those of other faiths who genuinely embrace the message of love and forgiveness are actually serving Christ even if they don’t know him by name. I know that there are Christians on this forum that will disagree with me on this point but frankly I can only say that I believe they are mistaken. The Bible also makes the point that it isn’t those who know the message of Christ that are right with him, but it is those who have his message in their hearts. As one Christian songwriter put it, it doesn’t matter if you know the Bible if it’s all just in your head, the thing I need to ask you is have you done the things I said.That’s the What, so now I’ll try and explain Why.Faith and Christianity are not science. The case for Christianity at this point 2000 years later, is based on largely circumstantial evidence. It can’t be tested in a lab or seen under a microscope. I do believe though that there is logic and reason to support Christianity if the question of its veracity is approached with an open mind.Atheism didn’t and doesn’t make sense to me. I realize that Dawkins and others have been able to show how Paley’s watch theory doesn’t hold up as conclusive proof, but they can’t prove the opposite either. It does appear to me that it is highly unlikely that my eyeball, a rose, my love for my family, and even my ability to reason just happened by some strange cosmic accident.Also, it seems to me that if the Atheistic view was accurate, their nature would be to simply get as much as they can, as quickly as they can, and anyway they can. My experience with Atheists is that this just isn’t the case. This indicates to me that their positive attributes are from something other than the natural. They love their families, and have compassion for others just like everyone else. I don’t see any evidence that feelings of love, compassion and values are a part of any evolutionary process. It certainly appears to me that there is something external to our physical world that is influencing our thoughts. It is also obvious that we can all choose to ignore that influence, or as it has been put, that still small voice.This much of Why Belief only got me to the point of being a Theist. Frankly at that point I knew very little of other faiths so I naturally turned to Christianity. Since then as I have gained knowledge and experience I have reaffirmed for myself,over and over, that I came to the right conclusion.I have a great deal of difficulty with the notion that God would create us and then basically ignore us. If he cared enough to create us, it seems logical to me that he would care enough to give us guidance. My kids are grown but I certainly didn’t leave them to raise themselves, and I believe that to be a good metaphor for our relationship with God.I can’t prove that Christ was who he said he was, but I believe that the circumstantial evidence is convincing. Why would he carry on a false messianic complex to the cross? Why would his followers who had been totally dispirited after the crucifixion go on to commit the rest of their lives to taking Christ’s life and message to the world. Some of the apostles were executed because of this commitment.If God created time and space it just seems to make sense to me that at some point that he would become a part of it. It also makes sense that he would come in human form to give us a template to live by. To be honest the concept of His death making possible the forgiveness of sins is something I don’t understand but do take on faith.Christ’s message of love, loyalty, honesty, resonated with me. In my initial time as a Christian I believed that even if I was wrong about the faith, I was becoming more like the person I really wanted to be. I found that after I had accepted the Christian faith as probably true, had joined a church, talked to other Christians and had started to pray, there was a change in my life. My outlook was different and my priorities changed. I realize many will believe that this is just power of suggestion and nothing I can say will make you feel otherwise, but frankly, I know the reality of what happened to me.I’m 61. Inside of me there is still a young guy of twenty. I think that all of us as we get older realize that, although our circumstances change, we mature, and we gain wisdom. There is a part of us that doesn’t change and is ageless. There is a part of us that isn’t really a part of time and space. There is something else beyond our life here. I know the old opiate of the masses’ quote, but frankly that wasn’t part of my decision. I became a Christian because I believed that it was the truth, not because I wanted it to be.edited for typosThis message has been edited by GDR, 06-01-2005 01:45 PM

I am most certainly not claiming that there is anything special about me. I think that it is fairly obvious that I was talking about all of mankind. My point was simply that although Dawkins and others have argued effectively that the eyeball could have evolved bit by bit over time without ID, does not mean that it did happen that way. Because it could have, does not mean that it did. We just basically disagree. I find that the evidence, although not conclusive either way, leads more logically to there being an Intelligent Designer than not. You make the statement that what I said is absolutely untrue. What puts you in a position to say that. It is the basic disagreement between atheists and theists. I believe that the urge for altruism in our lives comes from an Intelligent Designer whereas you believe that our sense of altruism evolved without any metaphysical influence. Neither position can be proven. We have both just looked at the evidence and come to different conclusions.By the "still small voice" I was referring to our conscience, as I'm sure you know. It is not Atheist bashing. It is simply the same argument again that I made in the previous paragraph. Actually, Atheism has brought about several positive changes to our world not the least of which was to force the church to clean up its act when it became far to politically powerful around the time of the French revolution.I frankly didn't think that I would be convincing you or others. The question was why do I believe what I do, and of course it's personal. I am guessing that you are basing your opinion on your experiences in the US. I live in Canada. In Canada the prominent religion is Secular Humanism. Just about any belief is treated with more respect than Christian belief.In actuality the Christian faith is growing far more rapidly in Asia, Africa and South America than in North America or Europe. As far as Christianity is concerned I think that your comment isn't supported by the facts, and that if you look at the current situation just the opposite is true as it applies to Christianity.

That is true of just about everyone. We read what we want to into everything. Accepting or rejecting a religious faith requires a paradigm shift in our thinking. That has certainly been true for me both as a Christian and as a non-Christian. I agree with you that science will make huge strides in the coming years in regards to intelligence, but I am much less sure about designing machines with consciousness. There is a vast difference between computing and reasoning and as far as I know, and as you seem to infer, science has no idea how we reason and even less of an idea how the brain makes moral decisions.I have only read about Kant, but I think that I can draw a parallel between his method and Dawkins. Both can explain how we might have come to where we are, whether it be our physical, biological or philosophical make up. They can only theorize though how it might have happened. I contend that it is just as reasonable to suggest that there is intelligent design behind it all. The first leans towards the scientific and the second towards the philosophical or theological.I simply contend that the argument for Intelligent Design is much more persuasive than the argument for random chance. Many would disagree.You are a scientist. I am just someone who finds science fascinating and struggles at just understanding basic scientific concepts. However, (I never let my lack of knowledge stop me from pontificating my point of view ), it seems to me as I read about QM I can't help but see ID in it all. I can look out my window and see the ocean, the sun, trees, houses etc and it all looks so real. QM is basically telling me now that it is all illusionary, that all matter is really just tiny particles of energy, that other little tiny particles of energy cause me to see this illusion as reality and that other particles of energy cause me to feel the illusion of substance.This doesn't seem to me like something that just happens. It requires something outside of our so-called reality in this dimension or universe, and that something would have to have intelligence. It seems to me that conclusion would cause me to learn what I could about this intelligence. I still maintain that if we really contemplate our own sense of being that we can sense a part of us that is more than just our physical being. For example think about your dreams. It seems to me that when I dream I'm not any particular age. There is something about our existence that just doesn't seem to fit anywhere into time.Also you might want to ask doctors about out of body experiences. The human mind has in my view made incredible leaps in understanding the natural world but in my view the human mind hasn't made little if any progress in understanding the world that is outside of the natural in 2000 years It is strange to me that you should say that because I have always felt that way until I started reading books on the incredible advances in human knowledge in all fields of science. From my viewpoint science has caused the universe to seem smaller and less formidable.I also tend to think that when you use the terms infinite and eternity you too have slipped over to the metaphysical. Maybe somewhere deep down in the recesses of your mind there lurks a Theist. Thanks for the discussion

We understand how to examine and experiment with the physical to gain physical evidence whereas there is no equivalent method of examining or experimenting with the metaphysical.This message has been edited by GDR, 06-01-2005 06:50 PM

I agree that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that you have. The question becomes which is more reasonable; is there design or not.When I considered the world around me, asked why we love, hate, experience joy or sorrow, or questioned the intricate nature of any life, I came to the conclusion that the evidence that all of this was designed or invented by an intelligence outside of our physical existence far exceeded the likelihood that this all came about by some cosmic accident.My experience of life since has only confirmed the conclusion that I reached about 25 years ago.

I assume that you are asking me for scientific evidence. I don't have any. Please show me your work. ID is not going to proven or disproven by science.I still maintain that the intricate nature of the natural world is far more likely to be designed than to have happened by random chance. If you want more detail see post 7 on this thread.

I gather by the signature that shows on your profile that you call yourself a secular humanist. You have come to one conclusion about the why's of this universe and our existance and I have come to another.I have already told you that I have no numbers. The question is philosophical not scientific. I use expressions like "a greater likelihood", whereas you use expressions like the quote I used. You say definitively that you are right which sounds like you must have proof for secular humanism. I'd like to see your numbers and your proof.

Hi MaxI'm not sure what it is you are looking for that wasn't in my earlier post.There is so much that has to be maintained in perfect balance for this world and this universe to exist that I contend that logic dictates that everything is designed. Is that proof? No. Is there proof that there is no design? No.I remember holding my children as infants. There is a joy and sense of connectedness that goes beyond physical reality. Is that proof? No.I simply maintain that when one considers the complexity of this world and of life itself, the range of emotions that we can experience, the fact that we are able to call something right or wrong, that we distinguish between good and evil, and the fact that we have consciousness at all causes me to believe that Intelligent Design is far more likely than not.

First, for the record, I'm not saying that the TofE is wrong, I'm just saying that that biological evolution is one thing, and that what we are talking about is something altogether different.I agree that these traits are also in other species although not to the same degree. For example after we had our pup for a couple of months we took him back to his mother. There was zero recognition. He was just another dog. I'll be concerned and anxious about my kids and grandkids until the day I die.At any rate I don't see the point as being particularly germane as I would also contend that the care that a mother dog has for her offspring comes from the same source as my love for my kids. As I said. At the time of the crucifixion the disciples were dispirited and felt that it had all been for nothing. Peter denied even knowing Christ three times.Subsequent to that they commit their lives to carrying on Christ's work. Why? I contend it is because they met the resurrected Christ. If I had been one of them it certainly would have got my attention.I don't pretend to understand the world of the metaphysical. I am convinced of its existence and I suppose anyone who believes in ID has to believe in the metaphysical as the intelligence in ID has to come from somewhere.I also assume that it isn't just the voice of God influencing us. (I'm not talking audible voices.)I also assume that not all the spiritual influences in our lives are positive ones. Let's just say that whatever it was influencing the 9/11 hijackers wasn't God. I believe that I have already addressed this issue so I’ll repeat what I have already posted in #7 and #14 in the next three paragraphs.As a Christian I don’t believe that other faiths are completely wrong. I frankly found it very reaffirming to read the Book Of Buddha. The original Buddha preached the very same message that Christ gave us which is to love your neighbour and beyond that even, to love your enemy. Christianity does proclaim the idea that Christ was God incarnate. In many ways Christ completed other faiths in existence at that time. (Islam came along later.)As I said, I don’t believe that other faiths are completely wrong and frankly I don’t accept the idea that there are nothing but Christians in heaven. I believe that those of other faiths who genuinely embrace the message of love and forgiveness are actually serving Christ even if they don’t know him by name. I know that there are Christians on this forum that will disagree with me on this point but frankly I can only say that I believe they are mistaken. The Bible also makes the point that it isn’t those who know the message of Christ that are right with him, but it is those who have his message in their hearts. As one Christian songwriter put it, it doesn’t matter if you know the Bible if it’s all just in your head, the thing I need to ask you is have you done the things I said.I am guessing that you are basing your opinion on your experiences in the US. I live in Canada. In Canada the prominent religion is Secular Humanism. Just about any belief is treated with more respect than Christian belief.
In actuality the Christian faith is growing far more rapidly in Asia, Africa and South America than in North America or Europe.

Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionarylikelihood n. 1 probability; likeliness
2 something that is likely to happen; a probability
3 likeness, resemblance (Obs)likely a. 1 having the appearance of truth; credible; probable;
as a likely story
2 seeming as if it would happen or make happen
reasonably to be expected; apparently destined
as, it is likely to leave at any minuteThere is no mention of how a probability or likelihood is arrived at, and no mention of mathematical proof. If you like I'll say that when I look at the complexity of life and the complexity of nature that is required to maintain life, I come to the conclusion that it is more probable to be by design than by some cosmic coincidence.I am saying that I believe design is the most probable conclusion to come to. You make much more definitive statements such as this quote. I asked before that seeing as how you contend that you are dealing with fact and I am only dealing with probabilities how about you show me your mathematical proof, or your numbers as you put it, that ID is impossible.By the way; I don't think that you're crazy either; just spiritually challenged. This message has been edited by GDR, 06-04-2005 08:15 AM

For the record I'm not a literalist when it comes to the Bible.What we are talking about here though is do miracles occur. I think that we all would agree that the resurrection of Christ would be considered a miracle.Look at what science has discovered in the last very few years. Particle science is virtually a revolution in science. All of a sudden we have information passing over any distance at infinite speed, (instantaneous), particles that move from one location to another without being in between and so on.Here is a quote from the New Scientist. I can't see where the resurrection is any more of a miracle than what we can today observe with particle entanglement. The big difference is that particle entanglement is a constantly reoccurring miracle so science can observe it and experiment with it at any time. The resurrection was a miracle that happened once in the past and cannot be observed today.

Webster's unabridged gives three uses of probability. One of those uses involve mathematics and two don't. I have never at any time, have suggested that my conclusion was in any way mathematical. Neither you nor I are totally objective in our search for truth. We can both accuse the other of finding what we wanted to find and we could both be right. Either there is design or there isn't. One of us is right and one is wrong. At this time there is no proof of which is correct. We both apply our observations, our knowledge and our experiences in life to come to the conclusions that we have.I see design, you don't. When I came to the conclusion that I did some 25 or so years ago I probably would have preferred that design would be the truth. I would doubt that you were any more objective in your decision, but who can measure objectivity. However, because I might have preferred an outcome does not mean it isn't the truth.You say, "you found what you wished to find, not what is accurate". Once again you are dealing with certainties whereas I agree that I am expressing an opinion. As you are dealing with certainties where is your proof that I am wrong. You are getting my honesty. Name calling doesn't enhance your argument.

The teachings of the Buddha were about loving your neighbour and loving your enemy. His message was the same message of love that Jesus gave us. I wouldn't argue at all that Buddha had a real revelation from God and could be considered a prophet.Christianity is growing more quickly in Asia, Africa, and S. America than it is in the western world. In this post modern world there appears to be a new appetite for things spiritual, whether it be in the traditional faiths or in something else.

I have never said that evolution is false. I merely contend that it can't be proven scientifically whether or not the hand of God was involved or not. I believe that it was.
I'm gone for a few hours.

As far as I know, and I stand to be corrected, but the original Buddha, (about 700 BC I think) did not talk bout a deity one way or the other. Buddha's message of loving your enemy would certainly be revolutionary 2700 years ago which still leads me to think that he was inspired in delivering the message that he did.My own thoughts on this are that the original Buddha was inspired with his message but the religion kinda got off the rails with reincarnation etc. I think in a way it has a parallel with Christianity, which was based on the Jewish prophecies that were fulfilled by Christ. Since then someone decided that the Bible should read like a book on science which has clouded the true message of Christ.Being a Christian does not require me to think that other religions are totally wrong.