What people think is true/false or probably true/false should be based on evidence and reason. This isn't controversial epistemology. Atheists and theists alike apply this in their daily lives as a matter of course.
Now, you might like to believe that billions and billions of your fellow humans have, for tens of thousands of years, held a view about the soul, the afterlife, Higher Being... with zero evidentiary or rational justification. But that's an extraordinarily bold accusation and it's based on your (rather conceited) opinion that there's some 'ring fence' preventing humans from applying evidence and reason in relation to (arguably) the most important existential questions of all.
You're saying that many people believe in god(s), and have done so for most of our recorded history, therefore god(s) must exist.
Nope. I never said "therefore"
You also imply that some of these people have evidence and rational justification to support their belief,
Nope. I don't imply it. I assert it as a fact.
You don't have to believe their (billions of) claims to have evidence. You don't have to agree with what they think is rational justification. But you can't gainsay their (billions of) experiences in the hope of rendering their evidence non-existent.
Better you should take a more reasonable stance and admit that all evidence - even repeatable empirical evidence - derives from
the senses. And you can no more tell another person what they saw/heard/felt than they can tell you what to think as to the nature of reality.
Better you should say...ok, I believe you
think you saw Jesus alive after three days but here's my contrary belief as to what you think you saw.
but you don't actually present any of the evidence or the rational chain of thought that could lead to such a belief. Which is what I was asking for.
You can't blame me for not answering a question before you ask it.
It's a new and different question.
1. Why do people believe? Because of evidence and reason.
2. What evidence and reason? Cue wall of text....
Most religious people I know believe what they believe because they were indoctrinated into their faith from a very early age by people they trust; their parents, family and community.
This seems like pretty rational behaviour.
Why would parents lie to their children? Why should children distrust their parents?
I "indoctrinated" my child into the belief that brushing your teeth is beneficial.
You may be one of those people, but I don't know that since you haven't told us what YOU believe and why (that I can recall).
I can't remember a time when I didn't think God was real and essentially connected to reality.
And nothing in my life experience has ever made me doubt that - including 20+ years of AvT debating.
Most religious people do NOT arrive at their faith through a process of fact finding and rational analyses,
Most
retain their faith by that process.
and most religious orders do not encourage open, critical analysis and debate of their foundational beliefs.
Rubbish. Debating theology, dogma and doctrine is probably the
hallmark of organized religion.
Perhaps you mean religious orders don't like
others/outsiders challenging their position.
Also, the idea that God discourages questioning and analysis is unbiblical.
Look at Abraham interrogating God as to the destruction of Sodom.
Look at Moses questioning Gods judgment.
God willingly engages with sincere and respectful enquiry.
Christians are commanded to beware of other philosophies - beware means be aware. (Col 2:8)
Christians are expected to be prepared to justify their beliefs in the face of skepticism / counter-apologetics.(1Peter 3:15)
...Heck, Lumpy has argued in another thread that we should believe in Biblegod because the Bible promises an afterlife, and that is a hope worth having.
That's one good reason. Not irrational. Cost benefit analysis isn't illogical.
If the afterlife is a placebo effect, then belief in its existence might the one thing which strengthens your souls 'immune' system sufficiently to survive that 'singularity' we call death. Jesus did say belief (trust) was a powerful force.
So, none of this really constitutes evidence for the existence of god(s), it is just evidence that many people believe in god(s) for various reasons, which reasons are almost never based on an analysis of evidence. Agreed?
No. I don't agree.
Neither do I think it's fair to accuse atheists of secretly believing in God or wilfully ignoring evidence. Although I have done it rhetorically to prove a point about how unfair it is to apply a double standard. It's bad faith dialogue to accuse someone of secretly knowing that they don't
really have any reason or evidence-based justification for their view.
Also, you haven't told us what you believe and why, but I did not expect you to.
I don't use the word "believe" in the context of God's existence.
I believe it might rain tomorrow. I believe my football team might win tomorrow. I believe politicians some of the time.
But to me, the belief that God doesn't exist is one which, as Frank Turek says, takes more faith than I could ever muster.
