Why would a reasonable person believe in God?

[TomC]

Why would an intelligent, capable entity of any kind make humans with such physical frailty?

I would be inclined to take this much further than the physical frailty. Humans are also astoundingly stupid. To me, the real Problem of Evil isn't the violent and uncaring universe. It's Human Nature.

Humans are born ignorant, fearful, needy, and fragile. Our perceptions and mental processes are weak. We tend to live and make everyday decisions based mostly on amoral instincts, habits, illusions, and short sighted self-serving idiocy. Our ability to learn better behavior is extremely limited.

There are literally far more reasons to believe we were not purposely built by a capable entity than the opposite.

Human Nature apparently evolved as the outcome of behaviors that resulted in the spread of our forebears. If we are the product of a Sentient Designer, It is a viciously wanton being. I find it impossible to believe that such an entity is more than a fictional character created by primitive people in their own image.

This likely explains all the attempted mileage over souls and spirits and supernature.

People are very prone to illusions, including the belief that they are smart and informed enough to figure out things that they know nothing about. Including inventing explanations about why their favorite God image is all powerful, but not capable of making humans smarter or better informed than the clever apes with opposable thumbs we evolved from.

Tom

 

[SIB]

For me, based on observation, it all about the traits you give you thing.

Lets face it, to believe that we are not part of a vastly more complex system than humans is as real as died and rose. So the belief in something more is, by far, more rational, reliable, and scientific than the reverse. I guess we atheist could fall back on "know body knows for sure so I believe we are not in a more complex system than humans." or the every popular "its my faith." But that wouldn't make any more sense than ... to me. It just counters what most people experience.

 

[James Brown]

It's difficult to verify what is accepted by faith except by using more faith.

Which might explain why people of faith so often settle their differences with violence.

 

[rousseau]

Why would an intelligent, capable entity of any kind make humans with such physical frailty?

I would be inclined to take this much further than the physical frailty. Humans are also astoundingly stupid. To me, the real Problem of Evil isn't the violent and uncaring universe. It's Human Nature.

Humans are born ignorant, fearful, needy, and fragile. Our perceptions and mental processes are weak. We tend to live and make everyday decisions based mostly on amoral instincts, habits, illusions, and short sighted self-serving idiocy. Our ability to learn better behavior is extremely limited.

There are literally far more reasons to believe we were not purposely built by a capable entity than the opposite.

Human Nature apparently evolved as the outcome of behaviors that resulted in the spread of our forebears. If we are the product of a Sentient Designer, It is a viciously wanton being. I find it impossible to believe that such an entity is more than a fictional character created by primitive people in their own image.

This likely explains all the attempted mileage over souls and spirits and supernature.

People are very prone to illusions, including the belief that they are smart and informed enough to figure out things that they know nothing about. Including inventing explanations about why their favorite God image is all powerful, but not capable of making humans smarter or better informed than the clever apes with opposable thumbs we evolved from.

Tom

If you look a little more closely at human nature you'll find that conformist psychology has survival value. What value is there in being a pillar of truth, when all of your family and friends just outcast you from the group? So an unwillingness to seek truth in favor of social relationships is actually more rational vis-a-vis survival and evolution.

We're talking about God belief like ideology exists in a theoretical bubble with no practical consequences. To a lot of people, becoming an atheist is a very bad decision. And it's not just a matter of choice, we've literally evolved to think this way.

 

[AdamWho]

Any time a believer wants to make an 'argument' for the existence of God, then they have already lost. You cannot argue things into existence.... and the only reason you would try is that you know that you don't have evidence.

If any god existed it would be completely obvious and prevalent in all aspects of our lives and science. We would have god variables in our physics equations and god technology. We would have miracle and faith competitions in the Olympics. Magic would literally exist.

 

[James Brown]

 

[Learner]

Any time a believer wants to make an 'argument' for the existence of God, then they have already lost. You cannot argue things into existence.... and the only reason you would try is that you know that you don't have evidence.

Evidence as described below through the "physics equations & God technology" I should hope not.

We can of course continue studying nature of course. The tangible material we can observe while we continue to do as we are, debating over its origin. IF there was evidence of its origin from the atheist camp - there'd be no more need to have arguments or debates - and the desire for the Gospel will be gone - conclusion nipped in the bud...case closed.

If any god existed it would be completely obvious and prevalent in all aspects of our lives and science. We would have god variables in our physics equations and god technology. We would have miracle and faith competitions in the Olympics. Magic would literally exist.

If God existed, this wouldn't actually be a sensible idea for mankind to have any access to the "physics equations and god technology'' as you put it.

Highlighting the obvious, when it comes to responsibility with such power. One could expect all sorts of disaster. Competitions becomes more than sporting rivalry when you hate your enemies, or envy your neighbour etc..

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you look a little more closely at human nature you'll find that conformist psychology has survival value. What value is there in being a pillar of truth, when all of your family and friends just outcast you from the group? So an unwillingness to seek truth in favor of social relationships is actually more rational vis-a-vis survival and evolution.

We're talking about God belief like ideology exists in a theoretical bubble with no practical consequences. To a lot of people, becoming an atheist is a very bad decision. And it's not just a matter of choice, we've literally evolved to think this way.

Remaining ignorant - and belief in religious claims, generally speaking, is an expression of human ignorance - so that I fit in socially with all the other ignoramuses is a good thing from the standpoint of evolution? I'm not buying. If that were true we'd still be living in caves and using stone tools, or perhaps have never even gotten that far.

To be accurate, most "theists" are largely atheists. They know that other gods are not real but somehow cling to this notion that theirs isn't, or aren't. How can such a condition possibly exist unless there is something in those brains that isn't connecting and isn't allowing them to have the awareness that their behavior is not rational? This is why I say that religious behavior is largely a bipolar legacy.

Yes, nothing exists in a vacuum and tribalism is certainly real. If you are claiming that tribalism is the driving force I will certainly agree. But tribalism is merely xenophobia enabled by a lack of familiarity with another culture. And it's competition as well. I think the theist/atheist distinction is small potatoes in the big picture.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The tangible material we can observe while we continue to do as we are, debating over its origin. IF there was evidence of its origin from the atheist camp...

"Tangible" material and evidence of its origin? Like the Santa story explaining where those presents came from when I was a child? Uh-huh.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Any time a believer wants to make an 'argument' for the existence of God, then they have already lost. You cannot argue things into existence.... and the only reason you would try is that you know that you don't have evidence.

If any god existed it would be completely obvious and prevalent in all aspects of our lives and science. We would have god variables in our physics equations and god technology. We would have miracle and faith competitions in the Olympics. Magic would literally exist.

Yes -- according to Christian scripture, we'd be moving mountains, healing cancer by laying on hands, and getting whatever we wanted by asking for it in Jesus' name. And a bunch of even greater miracles than Jesus pulled off. He said so.

 

[rousseau]

If you look a little more closely at human nature you'll find that conformist psychology has survival value. What value is there in being a pillar of truth, when all of your family and friends just outcast you from the group? So an unwillingness to seek truth in favor of social relationships is actually more rational vis-a-vis survival and evolution.

We're talking about God belief like ideology exists in a theoretical bubble with no practical consequences. To a lot of people, becoming an atheist is a very bad decision. And it's not just a matter of choice, we've literally evolved to think this way.

Remaining ignorant - and belief in religious claims, generally speaking, is an expression of human ignorance - so that I fit in socially with all the other ignoramuses is a good thing from the standpoint of evolution? I'm not buying. If that were true we'd still be living in caves and using stone tools, or perhaps have never even gotten that far.

To be accurate, most "theists" are largely atheists. They know that other gods are not real but somehow cling to this notion that theirs isn't, or aren't. How can such a condition possibly exist unless there is something in those brains that isn't connecting and isn't allowing them to have the awareness that their behavior is not rational? This is why I say that religious behavior is largely a bipolar legacy.

Yes, nothing exists in a vacuum and tribalism is certainly real. If you are claiming that tribalism is the driving force I will certainly agree. But tribalism is merely xenophobia enabled by a lack of familiarity with another culture. And it's competition as well. I think the theist/atheist distinction is small potatoes in the big picture.

So you could say that you reject the truth in favour of your belief ? Or aren't interested enough in science to investigate how belief works?

How would you explain belief from the standpoint of evolution?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So you could say that you reject the truth in favour of your belief ? Or aren't interested enough in science to investigate how belief works?

How would you explain belief from the standpoint of evolution?

Not sure what you are getting at with the first two questions. As for beliefs and evolution, belief is just like any other behavior. Natural selection never stops and environments which select for behaviors never stop changing.

 

[Learner]

The tangible material we can observe while we continue to do as we are, debating over its origin. IF there was evidence of its origin from the atheist camp...

"Tangible" material and evidence of its origin? Like the Santa story explaining where those presents came from when I was a child? Uh-huh.

No not like Santa. I can see the confusion, which may seem equivocal but I'm willing to put it down to 'over analyzing' the mind of the doctrine principled.

 

[Learner]

So you could say that you reject the truth in favour of your belief ? Or aren't interested enough in science to investigate how belief works?

How would you explain belief from the standpoint of evolution?

Not sure what you are getting at with the first two questions. As for beliefs and evolution, belief is just like any other behavior. Natural selection never stops and environments which select for behaviors never stop changing.

Pardon me for interjecting, but it seems to me that this 'natural selection' hasn't worked in your theory since the bipolar disorder in religious minds is erm.. still quite apparent as it were since the dawn of man, so to speak - and I think you said: 'everyone has it to some degree', or something similar to that effect, if I'm not mistaken. Natural selection fails in this regard.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Pardon me for interjecting, but it seems to me that this 'natural selection' hasn't worked in your theory since the bipolar disorder in religious minds is erm.. still quite apparent as it were since the dawn of man, so to speak - and I think you said: 'everyone has it to some degree', or something similar to that effect, if I'm not mistaken. Natural selection fails in this regard.

Fails? Not at all. Nature is always delivering up new recipes, testing out the water with new behaviors. Recessive traits are constantly being expressed. Bipolar is just one of many. There is a ton of survival value in being bipolar, just not in the present environment. It is still in the gene pool.

 

[bilby]

Natural selection fails in this regard.

Natural selection doesn't do perfect. It doesn't even do good. It does "not immediately deadly".

In rapidly growing populations, natural selection succeeds by producing lots of variation. Human population has been growing very rapidly for about a quarter of a millennium; The theory of evolution predicts (correctly) that many humans will now be found to exhibit traits that are of questionable value. The answer to the question of which is, in fact, valuable will be provided by the environment, which in a highly social species includes other humans as a major factor.

In a highly constrained population, or one that is rapidly declining (and there are plenty of examples of species in this phase of their evolution), we would expect, from the theory of evolution, to find that most individuals are extremely well adapted to their environments, and in such species we would expect variations from the majority phenotype to be rare, and often rapidly fatal.

It's the success of these predictions of the theory of evolution that makes it a theory, and not just an hypothesis.

Natural selection works to improve the fitness of a population to its environment by producing variation as populations increase, and culling the less well fitted individuals preferentially (a process that's particularly noticeable as populations decline).

 

[rousseau]

So you could say that you reject the truth in favour of your belief ? Or aren't interested enough in science to investigate how belief works?

How would you explain belief from the standpoint of evolution?

Not sure what you are getting at with the first two questions. As for beliefs and evolution, belief is just like any other behavior. Natural selection never stops and environments which select for behaviors never stop changing.

I was just being cute with you. A lot of times members at this forum seem to fall into the same patterns that the religious are accused of. Being staunch in their beliefs. But then I'm not convinced that most of the discussion that happens here doesn't amount to activism, and not real discourse.

How would you say that the environment that's driving selection is changing for us?

 

[rousseau]

Natural selection fails in this regard.

Natural selection doesn't do perfect. It doesn't even do good. It does "not immediately deadly".

In rapidly growing populations, natural selection succeeds by producing lots of variation. Human population has been growing very rapidly for about a quarter of a millennium; The theory of evolution predicts (correctly) that many humans will now be found to exhibit traits that are of questionable value. The answer to the question of which is, in fact, valuable will be provided by the environment, which in a highly social species includes other humans as a major factor.

In a highly constrained population, or one that is rapidly declining (and there are plenty of examples of species in this phase of their evolution), we would expect, from the theory of evolution, to find that most individuals are extremely well adapted to their environments, and in such species we would expect variations from the majority phenotype to be rare, and often rapidly fatal.

It's the success of these predictions of the theory of evolution that makes it a theory, and not just an hypothesis.

Natural selection works to improve the fitness of a population to its environment by producing variation as populations increase, and culling the less well fitted individuals preferentially (a process that's particularly noticeable as populations decline).

I'm a fan of Dawkins' gene-level selection theory myself. But I'm more interested in others views on the topic than explaining my own view.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So you could say that you reject the truth in favour of your belief ? Or aren't interested enough in science to investigate how belief works?

How would you explain belief from the standpoint of evolution?

Not sure what you are getting at with the first two questions. As for beliefs and evolution, belief is just like any other behavior. Natural selection never stops and environments which select for behaviors never stop changing.

I was just being cute with you. A lot of times members at this forum seem to fall into the same patterns that the religious are accused of. Being staunch in their beliefs. But then I'm not convinced that most of the discussion that happens here doesn't amount to activism, and not real discourse.

How would you say that the environment that's driving selection is changing for us?

Of course it's activism. None of us are standing on street corners shouting but we are interacting with each other within a larger agora, being observed and judged.

The biggest change I see presently is human population density. Number two would be all the compounds and chemicals now ubiquitous in our environment and food supplies to which we are exposed. And finally I would add environmental degradation which includes the destruction of species. You can't be a penguin in the Antarctic or a blue whale in the middle of the Pacific and escape exposure. Natural selection is quite active here. In that I am an IBS sufferer there are many compounds and foods I must avoid, which I do. But I still have to inhale the same air and am exposed to the same chemicals.

The rage in my neck of the woods is to clear a hundred acres and build patio homes. These places make living easier for those older folks who have the money to move into them but it amazes me their cluelessness about their local environment. It's treated lawns and manicured exotic species. They may as well be living on fairways. It's all green and dead and but they are clueless. It's shocking, quite frankly, that someone can lose their connectedness with those systems and species which support their very lives. Are people drugged?

I apologize for the ranty tone.

 

[Learner]

Pardon me for interjecting, but it seems to me that this 'natural selection' hasn't worked in your theory since the bipolar disorder in religious minds is erm.. still quite apparent as it were since the dawn of man, so to speak - and I think you said: 'everyone has it to some degree', or something similar to that effect, if I'm not mistaken. Natural selection fails in this regard.

Fails? Not at all. Nature is always delivering up new recipes, testing out the water with new behaviors. Recessive traits are constantly being expressed.

I often find it a little intriguing when nature is explained in the form of it having agency.
"Testing and delivering up new recipes", is a language I can understand fortunately.

Bipolar is just one of many. There is a ton of survival value in being bipolar, just not in the present environment. It is still in the gene pool.

Perhaps then this particular bipolar is not actually disorder but rather, a natural human trait that doesn't require fixing. All children who believe in Santa, or stories are bipolar by your definition. So If we are to go by that definition, then as you describe... bipolar is normality.