Is there God?

[Florestan]

Well, I do believe something created the universe. I just don't believe humanity has created a religion or god or even a scientific theory that explains it to my satisfaction.

I can certainly see where you're coming from. Been there, done that myself. My only quibble is that no religion, god or scientific theory is under any obligation to give you, or me, or anyone else a satisfactory explanation. I see it this way: rationally speaking, there is both enough evidence for God and enough evidence for atheism --- reason by itself is unable to give the ultimate answer. That's why religion is a matter of belief, not of reason. Given the unconclusive evidence, some people choose theism (of whatever persuasion, I don't limit it to Christianity although I'm a Christian myself), some other choose atheism, probably most people choose agnosticism. The keyword is choice, free choice.

I freely (ie, after rationally, volitionally and sentimentally considering all pros and cons to the best of my knowledge, volition and sentiment) made the choice of being a convinced-yet-not-devout Eastern Orthodox Christian, ie keeping, and upholding, the faith I was baptized in. I say keeping because in my 20s I seriously considered converting to Roman Catholicism. Eventually I gave up any such notion and I'm only too glad I did: the Romanian Orthodox Church (and Eastern Orthodoxy in general) might lack some of the positives of the Roman Catholic Church but it certainly lacks all its negatives --- and besides, it's not a matter of positives and negatives, but of truth. Once again, my mind, soul and heart all tell me that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true.

Note to Poju (71dB) and to anyone else whom it may concern: apart from being baptized I had no particularly religious upbringing. My parents, while not being atheists, were not very devout either. We have always had icons in our home, we went to baptisms, weddings and funerals --- just like everybody else. Yet they never inculcated in my mind any notion of God, religion, faith etc. In my early teens I even went through a rationalist / scientist phase when I thought everything can be explained rationally and science is the ultimate answer to all mankind's questions. Yet even then I was no atheist proper. But I discovered God, religion and faith completely on my own, helped by four seminal events / books: (1) watching Zefirelli's Jesus of Nazareth when I was 16; (2) reading Pascal's Meditations when I was 16; (3) reading The New Testament when I was 17 (and during high-school classes no less ); and last but not least, reading Nicolae Steinhardt's Diary of Happiness when I was 18-19-20 (he was a Romanian-born Jewish writer and essayst who was a political prisoner in Communist Romania, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy while in prison and died as a monk just months before the Communist regime was toppled --- while imprisoned he wrote in his mind a splendid, erudite and moving diary which he transcribed by memory after release --- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Steinhardt). So you see, my story is not that of a convert from Christianity to atheism but that of a transition from mild agnosticism to convinced Christianity ---- in which reason played a major role.

Anyway and bottom line, we shall die and we shall see.

[Florestan]

Yes. I don't deny the possibility that a creator exists. In fact it seems probable. I just have no idea what that "god" is or means to humanity.

Thanks. If you could only read that Steinhardt's splendid book...

[Karl Henning]

I can certainly see where you're coming from. Been there, done that myself. My only quibble is that no religion, god or scientific theory is under any obligation to give you, or me, or anyone else a satisfactory explanation. I see it this way: rationally speaking, there is both enough evidence for God and enough evidence for atheism --- reason by itself is unable to give the ultimate answer. That's why religion is a matter of belief, not of reason. Given the unconclusive evidence, some people choose theism (of whatever persuasion, I don't limit it to Christianity although I'm a Christian myself), some other choose atheism, probably most people choose agnosticism. The keyword is choice, free choice.

I freely (ie, after rationally, volitionally and sentimentally considering all pros and cons to the best of my knowledge, volition and sentiment) made the choice of being a convinced-yet-not-devout Eastern Orthodox Christian, ie keeping, and upholding, the faith I was baptized in. I say keeping because in my 20s I seriously considered converting to Roman Catholicism. Eventually I gave up any such notion and I'm only too glad I did: the Romanian Orthodox Church (and Eastern Orthodoxy in general) might lack some of the positives of the Roman Catholic Church but it certainly lacks all its negatives --- and besides, it's not a matter of positives and negatives, but of truth. Once again, my mind, soul and heart all tell me that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true.

Note to Poju (71dB) and to anyone else whom it may concern: apart from being baptized I had no particularly religious upbringing. My parents, while not being atheists, were not very devout either. We have always had icons in our home, we went to baptisms, weddings and funerals --- just like everybody else. Yet they never inculcated in my mind any notion of God, religion, faith etc. In my early teens I even went through a rationalist / scientist phase when I thought everything can be explained rationally and science is the ultimate answer to all mankind's questions. Yet even then I was no atheist proper. But I discovered God, religion and faith completely on my own, helped by four seminal events / books: (1) watching Zefirelli's Jesus of Nazareth when I was 16; (2) reading Pascal's Meditations when I was 16; (3) reading The New Testament when I was 17 (and during high-school classes no less ); and last but not least, reading Nicolae Steinhardt's Diary of Happiness when I was 18-19-20 (he was a Romanian-born Jewish writer and essayst who was a political prisoner in Communist Romania, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy while in prison and died as a monk just months before the Communist regime was toppled --- while imprisoned he wrote in his mind a splendid, erudite and moving diary which he transcribed by memory after release --- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Steinhardt). So you see, my story is not that of a convert from Christianity to atheism but that of a transition from mild agnosticism to convinced Christianity ---- in which reason played a major role.

Anyway and bottom line, we shall die and we shall see.

Interesting, and I see it. Thanks for the post.

no religion, god or scientific theory is under any obligation to give you, or me, or anyone else a satisfactory explanation is certainly a reasonable position, and yet, if God made us, she seems to have made us with a keen curiosity for satisfactory explanations. It were cruel to create people like that, only to frustrate that thirst.

[Florestan]

How we act demonstrates what we believe ... and every act should be a prayer.

Absolutely.

Cf.  James 2: 14-17

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

I don't want to go controversial but I can't help it: as time goes by, more and more, I am more firmly convinced that sola fide, especially in the extreme Calvinist version, is possibly, nay, probably, nay, certainly the main culprit for the bad rap Christianity has, especially in the Anglophone Western world.

I can only say that according to my reason and belief this sola fide thing --- and to a lesser yet no less grave extent, sola Scriptura --- are non-Christian, absurd, irrational notions for which there is no basis either in Jesus Christ's own teachings and deeds, or in The New Testament taken as a whole or in the Early Apostolic Church's tradition (ie the Church before 1054). Besides my personal position, both sola fide and sola Scriptura have been repeatedly condemned as heretical by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church --- the difference being that in the EOC the gravest punishment for unrepentant heretics has always been simply to exclude them from the Church's service and the Holy Communion.

[Florestan]

no religion, god or scientific theory is under any obligation to give you, or me, or anyone else a satisfactory explanation is certainly a reasonable position, and yet, if God made us, she seems to have made us with a keen curiosity for satisfactory explanations. It were cruel to create people like that, only to frustrate that thirst.

Sure, Karl, sure. But I'm sure (pun) that if all satisfactory explanations were available, then there would be no more room for belief --- and reasonable person as I (hope I really) am, I still think (informed) belief is the essence of (true) religion.

As Kierkegaard (a philosophical Protestant no less, and generally I have little sympathy for philosophical Protestants) put it (I quote from memory): If God were to descend from Heaven as a giant multicolored parrot and disclose Himself, everybody would acknowledge Him. But that would be a matter of reason, not belief.

Cf. John 20: 26-29

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


What I agree with is that many who believe without seeing think they are above those who don't (yet) believe and think that "once saved, always saved" --- but once again, this is an absurd, non-Christian notion that Jesus Christ never taught, the apostles never taught, the Early Church never taught, The Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox Church never taught.

[steve ridgway]

My only quibble is that no religion, god or scientific theory is under any obligation to give you, or me, or anyone else a satisfactory explanation.

Yeah, my viewpoint is basically scientific but I'm actually scientific enough to notice and not ignore very many meaningful but highly unlikely personal experiences even though I haven't the faintest idea how they came about.

[steve ridgway]

The first random old sci-fi story I've read has given me the valuable ideas that I might just not have the intelligence to put all the pieces together and understand what's going on, although paying more attention to seeing through mental delusions would certainly help matters.

[71 dB]

Sarge: is it correct that for you there is a difference between agnostic and atheist?

You didn't ask me, but I'll give my view of this. The difference between agnostic and atheist is in how strong your lack of belief in God is. Some people who I think are clearly atheists call themselves agnostics. I also believe most people are actually agnostics, but many of them claim to be religious. That's because most societies are constructed so that it is "safer" to claim to be religious while atheism is stigmatized althou things are getting better.

------

I have questions for you: What is your justification for your own beliefs? Why are your beliefs better than the beliefs of other people? Have you ever thought about the reasons for your beliefs? Do you think you have your beliefs because the belief are the truth or because of other reasons such as the cultural environment you were born into? Do you think we are born religious or do you think we are indoctrinated into religions?

As an atheist I have my own "secular" beliefs. My justification for those beliefs is what I know and what makes sense to me. That's all I have got, so I know I might need to adjust my beliefs if there is new knowledge that is in contradiction with my current beliefs. To me the idea that we can have beliefs that can never be proven wrong is ridiculous and even dangerous (fanatism). Belief are beliefs because we only believe they are true, but we lack the proof. When we have the proof a belief becomes a fact. Beliefs are by definition things not proven. Doubting beliefs is healthy. That way bad beliefs can be removed for better ones. I don't mind if my beliefs are challenged. If I can't defend my beliefs I better do something about it! You do a service to me if you expose the weaknesses of my beliefs.

[Karl Henning]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

[MusicTurner]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

+1.

[steve ridgway]

Do I think the six hundred and thirteen mitzvot are a good moral basis on which to fix the world? No, as a general rule, although I'd agree with some of them.

Wow, I had to look those up. Unfortunately I failed at

598. Blot out the memory of Amalek.
(Deuteronomy 25:19)

as I couldn't resist googling it.

[prémont]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

+2 (from memory). Actually amw's long recent post has disappeared.

[j winter]

May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

In the interest of preventing further theological suspense and unease, I'll point discreetly to the following (presumably) relevant text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Brahmsian]

In the interest of preventing further theological suspense and unease, I'll point discreetly to the following (presumably) relevant text:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

There are several branches that I follow within pastafarianism that I am devoted to religiously, pardon the pun.

[amw]

+2 (from memory). Actually amw's long recent post has disappeared.

I removed it to avoid breaking a personal resolution not to post about nonmusical topics on this board. Apologies for that.

[arpeggio]

About thirty years ago I suffered and almost died from pancreatitis.

In order to try to save me they place me into an induced comma.  It worked because I am still here.  I did not see any lights or anything like that.  All I remember is that I woke up as if nothing happened 

I was born in 1946.  Even though I used to pray to God, he has never spoken to me.  So he either does not exist or he does not like me.

[Florestan]

I have questions for you: What is your justification for your own beliefs?  Have you ever thought about the reasons for your beliefs? Do you think you have your beliefs because the belief are the truth or because of other reasons such as the cultural environment you were born into? Do you think we are born religious or do you think we are indoctrinated into religions?

Please read my reply #60.

Why are your beliefs better than the beliefs of other people?

I don't believe (pun) I ever claimed that.

[71 dB]

Reading your reply #60. 

I can certainly see where you're coming from. Been there, done that myself. My only quibble is that no religion, god or scientific theory is under any obligation to give you, or me, or anyone else a satisfactory explanation. I see it this way: rationally speaking, there is both enough evidence for God and enough evidence for atheism --- reason by itself is unable to give the ultimate answer. That's why religion is a matter of belief, not of reason. Given the unconclusive evidence, some people choose theism (of whatever persuasion, I don't limit it to Christianity although I'm a Christian myself), some other choose atheism, probably most people choose agnosticism. The keyword is choice, free choice.

I don't think there is ANY evidence for God (any of the about 4000 Gods mankind has worshipped in history) or the lack of God. If there was, we wouldn't have to argue about these things. We don't debate over the claims that the Sun exists, do we? Sure, there are flat earthers, but they are a fringe group of weird people with mental issues believing in the craziest conspiracies ever.

Since we don't have evidence in either direction, we are forced to other kind of justification for our beliefs and that is what separates religious people from non-religious people. Because I am non-religious, I don't need to assume the religion I happened to born into happens to be the truth and therefore I have to think backwards from the (true) conclusions of that particular religion how the World must be. From intellectual point of view such method of forming my views of the World would be totally crazy. Instead I look at what religions say about the World and compare it with what science has to say and evaluate how well they describe the World. The result is I trust science so much that if science finds evidence for God I will become a believer. So far science has not seen God anywhere meaning I don't have any reason to believe in God meaning I am a atheist. Science hasn't seen the flying spagetti monster either anywhere so I don't believe in it either.

We can't assume reason has limits. We don't know. Human mind can have biological limits, but reasoning might not have limits. If it has limits we can keep reasoning until we reach those limits and then decide what next. What religions do should make alarm bells ring: It makes strong claims and then says you can't evaluate those claims with reason, because they are based on belief and are beyond reason! Anyone can create such belief system claiming ANYTHING! No wonder there has been so many religions in human history. Compare that to science which is about constantly testing if the claims are correct. Just recently tests with muon particles revealed that the standard model of particle physics might not be completely correct and there might be a fifth force of nature (maybe it is God?  ).

I freely (ie, after rationally, volitionally and sentimentally considering all pros and cons to the best of my knowledge, volition and sentiment) made the choice of being a convinced-yet-not-devout Eastern Orthodox Christian, ie keeping, and upholding, the faith I was baptized in. I say keeping because in my 20s I seriously considered converting to Roman Catholicism. Eventually I gave up any such notion and I'm only too glad I did: the Romanian Orthodox Church (and Eastern Orthodoxy in general) might lack some of the positives of the Roman Catholic Church but it certainly lacks all its negatives --- and besides, it's not a matter of positives and negatives, but of truth. Once again, my mind, soul and heart all tell me that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true.

You talk about positives and negatives and how that has affected your choice of your beliefs. It also seem like you have only compared positives and negatives between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. What about other religions? In Finland the dominant religion is Evangelical Lutheran Christianity. How about its pros and cons? How about Protestant Christianity? How about Judaism? Or Islam? Or Hinduism? Are they just inferior to what Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have to offer?

How convenient for you that Eastern Orthodox Christianity is true! Just imagine if you were born in UK! Not much Eastern Orthodox Christianity in there! Because of Russian influence we have many Orthodox churches in Finland and 58 000 members. The Uspenski Cathedral in Helsinki is the largest Orthodox church in Western Europe.

For me this is easy: Science is just science. There is not choosing between Catholic science and Lutheran science. Scientists in Israel agree with scientist in Japan and Chile for the most part and disagreements tend to be temporal rather than persistent. By the way, if I had to choose a religion, I would probably choose Hinduism. What I know about religions, it seems most intellectual.

Note to 71dB and to anyone else whom it may concern: apart from being baptized I had no particularly religious upbringing. My parents, while not being atheists, were not very devout either. We have always had icons in our home, we went to baptisms, weddings and funerals --- just like everybody else. Yet they never inculcated in my mind any notion of God, religion, faith etc. In my early teens I even went through a rationalist / scientist phase when I thought everything can be explained rationally and science is the ultimate answer to all mankind's questions. Yet even then I was no atheist proper. But I discovered God, religion and faith completely on my own, helped by four seminal events / books: (1) watching Zefirelli's Jesus of Nazareth when I was 16; (2) reading Pascal's Meditations when I was 16; (3) reading The New Testament when I was 17 (and during high-school classes no less ); and last but not least, reading Nicolae Steinhardt's Diary of Happiness when I was 18-19-20 (he was a Romanian-born Jewish writer and essayst who was a political prisoner in Communist Romania, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy while in prison and died as a monk just months before the Communist regime was toppled --- while imprisoned he wrote in his mind a splendid, erudite and moving diary which he transcribed by memory after release --- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Steinhardt). So you see, my story is not that of a convert from Christianity to atheism but that of a transition from mild agnosticism to convinced Christianity ---- in which reason played a major role.

I have not experienced any of those four events. When I was a teenager I read a lot of science fiction (Stanislaw Lem etc.) I guess that's why I have always been an atheist... ...looks like the communist regime in Romania has had crucial effect on your beliefs.

What I mean is I don't share many experiences with other people so I can't understand why reading a certain book or seeing a movie converts someone into a religion. These things are clearly meaningful for you, but that doesn't mean they are meaningful to others.

[vandermolen]

Very interesting thread. Probably I should have voted 'I don't know but I do care' - although I'll stick with 'probably yes'. One thing I do believe is that no one religion has unique access to God. My own background is Jewish (I had to secretly learn my barmitzvah passage in English phonetics  ). My wife is a church-going Christian. My daughter is very interested in her partly Jewish background - at primary school she was the, self-appointed' 'Jewish Expert'. She is getting married ( ) in a couple of weeks and wants a Jewish blessing for her marriage. In liberal Judaism you can now be Jewish through your father, no doubt due to the large number of Jews (including myself and my brother) who have 'married out''. My family was never practising except that we observed fasting on Yom Kippur (as my daughter and I do now). One thing I do like about Judaism is that it does not claim unique access to God or deny other faiths a meaningful relationship with God. If anything, I see myself more at home, philosophically, with Taoism than with any organised religion.

[Karl Henning]

Very interesting thread. Probably I should have voted 'I don't know but I do care' - although I'll stick with 'probably yes'. One thing I do believe is that no one religion has unique access to God. My own background is Jewish (I had to secretly learn my barmitzvah passage in English phonetics  ). My wife is a church-going Christian. My daughter is very interested in her partly Jewish background - at primary school she was the, self-appointed' 'Jewish Expert'. She is getting married ( ) in a couple of weeks and wants a Jewish blessing for her marriage. In liberal Judaism you can now be Jewish through your father, no doubt due to the large number of Jews (including myself and my brother) who have 'married out''. My family was never practising except that we observed fasting on Yom Kippur (as my daughter and I do now). One thing I do like about Judaism is that it does not claim unique access to God or deny other faiths a meaningful relationship with God. If anything, I see myself more at home, philosophically, with Taoism than with any organised religion.

Most interesting, thanks for posting.