Why do many Americans believe in God?

[river]

Because they know no better.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What does faith have to do with believing in God?

Yes. I understand that faith is a part of some aspect of belief. But I also understand that faith plays a role within every person, whether believer or not. So we cannot use faith as a reason why many Americans believe in God, as it is not exclusive to religious belief.

I used the word faith as a synonym for both religion and supernatural belief.

We should just focus on the questions raised in the OP.
The idea that there is one type of faith for a believer and another for a non believer, is a nonsense. But if you are adamant, then please define 'belief in God' (note upper case g).

In the general sense, there is a close relationship in that very few people claim to have direct evidence of God and therefore must be taking his existence on faith.

Maybe, and maybe not. Judging a situation by using your experience (or lack of) serves no purpose but push forward your world view.

As for the ones who do claim to have direct evidence, they can't produce this evidence to demonstrate to others, and therefore those others who follow them must do so on the basis of faith.

How do you know that it can be evidenced they way you're prepared to accept?
Does the fact that you cannot perceive their experience mean that their experience is not true?
Why don't you just accept that you cannot perceive it, and be done with it?

I don't see the point of "this point".

The first question implies that there may be some sort of problem with many Americans believing in God. My point is that it is entirely normal human behaviour to believe in God. Societies have always believed in God, in some form or other. So the question cannot be answered any more than asking why do many Americans breath, which would be a pointless pursuit, unless there were other options.

Many Americans, as other nationalities, claim not to believe in a god quite simply because, as in my case, they do not. Why we do not believe varies from person to person.
I don't even see the reason for your departure from the OP.

I don't wish to depart from the OP. I'm asking you to define belief in God.
What is it, exactly, you don't believe in? And what is the justification for your lack of belief.

As I stated, it is entirely normal, human, behaviour to believe in God. I see nothing wrong or questionable about it. It is as normal as breathing air. So why question it unless you see something wrong, or questionable about it. That being the case, you must have a definition of what it is to ''believe in God''.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

The idea that there is one type of faith for a believer and another for a non believer, is a nonsense.

Please define "faith" in this regard.
I concur that faith is not limited to belief in God, or in gods, or in anything else, but I am curious as to why you think that faith "plays a role within every person", and I feel it must have something to do with how you define "faith". So please can you do so?

Why don't you just accept that you cannot perceive it, and be done with it?

That is the position many agnostics take, although some argue that god is unknowable. So what do you think all these people who can not perceive God should do? Accept and believe that God exists anyway? Simply "have faith", the way you obviously do in everything you can't perceive or have demonstrated to you?

I don't wish to depart from the OP. I'm asking you to define belief in God.
What is it, exactly, you don't believe in? And what is the justification for your lack of belief.

What is your justification for lack of belief in that which you can not perceive?

As I stated, it is entirely normal, human, behaviour to believe in God. I see nothing wrong or questionable about it. It is as normal as breathing air.

Please don't be absurd, Jan: every living person breathes air; not every living person believes in God. Thus belief in God, while a "normal" state of affairs for humans based on such criteria as "the majority do", is certainly not as "normal as breathing air" (which is a case of "everyone does").

So why question it unless you see something wrong, or questionable about it.

just because it may be a "normal" (i.e. an activity most humans partake in) activity does not mean that one can not, nor should not, question why it should be the case rather than an alternative. The norm for supernovae is to explode with the same brightness. We have asked "why?" and by doing so pushed back our boundaries of understanding. D we see anything wrong with the way they behave? No. But we are curious as to why. Hence we ask.
So please drop the defensiveness, Jan.

 

[Spellbound]

Because they know no better.

Oh but they do.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So please drop the defensiveness, Jan.

What defensiveness?
Jan.

 

[Jeeves]

[... So we cannot use faith as a reason why many Americans believe in God, as it is not exclusive to religious belief.

Nor was I doing anything of the kind. I merely used the word as the dictionary uses it, without prejudice. Obviously, faith is not the reason for faith. People don't need to give a reason for unreasoning beliefs. And before you pick on that word, I use it as the great Christian apologist Blaise Pascal, used it: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart." . Believers have many and various reasons for their willing suspension of reason in this matter, but I don't pretend to understand all of them.

We should just focus on the questions raised in the OP.

I've attempted to do so.

The idea that there is one type of faith for a believer and another for a non believer, is a nonsense.

Which is why I have raised no such idea. I can't quite see why you did.

But if you are adamant, then please define 'belief in God' (note upper case g).

I am not 'adamant'. However, the short answer is: A conviction, usually unquestioned, that a supreme being exists, made the world and has a special regard for human being; that this supreme being is synonymous with, or very similar to, the character described in the compendium of ancient texts known and the Bible. (The long answer is irrelevant to most Americans.)

How do you know that it can be evidenced they way you're prepared to accept?
Does the fact that you cannot perceive their experience mean that their experience is not true?
Why don't you just accept that you cannot perceive it, and be done with it?

None of this is relevant to the OT

The first question implies that there may be some sort of problem with many Americans believing in God.

Do you think so? I didn't infer this.

My point is that it is entirely normal human behaviour to believe in God.

Nobody said it wasn't normal. But normal behaviours and attitudes also have causes, and it's not inappropriate to ask why.

Societies have always believed in God, in some form or other.

Always is probably a bit longer than you're familiar with. But the question wasn't about some-form-or-other of supernatural belief, I'm pretty sure it was about the Abrahamic god in particular, and he's only been around, in three standard models, for about 3000 years.

So the question cannot be answered any more than asking why do many Americans breath, which would be a pointless pursuit, unless there were other options.

And yet, we've attempted to answer it. Actually, there are more alternatives to Christianity, and established church-based religion generally, than there are to breathing.

What is it, exactly, you don't believe in? And what is the justification for your lack of belief.

The short answer to part 1: I don't believe in the supernatural in any form, and I specifically reject the mean god of the bible and his masochist son. to part 2: I don't need any.

 

[Sarkus]

What defensiveness?

Your reply was mostly one of defense: for example your opening response to Jeeves was one of "so we can't use..." but you didn't offer an alternative. Then your efforts to portray the OP's question as somehow suggesting there is something wrong with the position being questioned is a defensive argument, as it merely seeks to deflect away from the actual question.

When you did finally offer something other than a defense you unfortunately used a rather poor comparison (between the "normalities" of belief in God and breathing), but your subsequent response to me was to ignore such criticism and other matters raised in my response to you but instead simply focus on the request for you to drop your defensiveness. Which ironically is another defensive stance from you.

But enough of explaining your own posts to you... Do you have anything further than simply saying belief in god is natural, and that we shouldn't question it?

 

[Spellbound]

Nor was I doing anything of the kind. I merely used the word as the dictionary uses it, without prejudice. Obviously, faith is not the reason for faith. People don't need to give a reason for unreasoning beliefs. And before you pick on that word, I use it as the great Christian apologist Blaise Pascal, used it: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart." . Believers have many and various reasons for their willing suspension of reason in this matter, but I don't pretend to understand all of them.

Oh you are so wise and intelligent.

The short answer to part 1: I don't believe in the supernatural in any form, and I specifically reject the mean god of the bible and his masochist son. to part 2: I don't need any.

So you believe that the supernatural is the stuff of Hollywood? That an episode of the supernatural is too unbelievable to believe? What about electromagnetic waves transmission? Do you believe in that?

 

[Jeeves]

Oh you are so wise and intelligent.

Thank you.

So you believe that the supernatural is the stuff of Hollywood?

Certainly not. A fascinating scope and range and variety of supernatural beliefs existed all over the world, for at least 10,000 years before Hollywood.

That an episode of the supernatural is too unbelievable to believe?

Very likely. I don't watch it, so I can't comment on any episode specifically.

What about electromagnetic waves transmission? Do you believe in that?

No. To "believe in" is a phrase used particularly for matters of subjective judgment informed by emotion. I believe, without the "in", a great many facts and theories set forth by persons better qualified than I am to evaluate them. My general criteria for credence regarding such matters are: 1/ is it plausible? 2/ who said it ? and 3/ does it work? And, of course, all such credence is provisional.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Your reply was mostly one of defense: for example your opening response to Jeeves was one of "so we can't use..."

Wrong! My opening response to Jeeves was to ''define belief in God''.

Then your efforts to portray the OP's question as somehow suggesting there is something wrong with the position being questioned is a defensive argument, as it merely seeks to deflect away from the actual question.

I said it implies that there may be something wrong with believing in God.
Having had an awful lot of experience with vocal atheists, I'm quite sure that I'm not wrong, but if I am. Bite me.

Do you have anything further than simply saying belief in god is natural, and that we shouldn't question it?

Do you see anything wrong with it?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Believers have many and various reasons for their willing suspension of reason in this matter, but I don't pretend to understand all of them.

How do you know if something is true?
And what is the justification for accepting that knowledge as truth?

Which is why I have raised no such idea. I can't quite see why you did.

Just covering bases.

I am not 'adamant'. However, the short answer is: A conviction, usually unquestioned, that a supreme being exists, made the world and has a special regard for human being; that this supreme being is synonymous with, or very similar to, the character described in the compendium of ancient texts known and the Bible. (The long answer is irrelevant to most Americans.)

From this it would seem that you see belief in God as, an answer .

That we read about God in ancient texts, and have simply made a decision to believe that what is stated in those scriptures are true?

How is it that we actually believe in God? Not where did we get the information from.

Do you think so? I didn't infer this.

What was 'rivers' response... ''Because they have no desire to evolve into thinking people.''

The funny thing is that no one has challenged that unprovoked attack as of yet.
How can he get away with that, unless it is the norm around here?

Always is probably a bit longer than you're familiar with.

What do you mean?

But the question wasn't about some-form-or-other of supernatural belief, I'm pretty sure it was about the Abrahamic god in particular, and he's only been around, in three standard models, for about 3000 years.

The Abrahamic God, is simply a title people use to refer to specific types of religion. There isn't an ''Abrahamic God'' out there. It is simply God. And God is known through His unique characteristics, regardless of what He/It is called. There can only be one God, by definition of God (Supreme Cause of All causes).

The short answer to part 1: I don't believe in the supernatural in any form, and I specifically reject the mean god of the bible and his masochist son. to part 2: I don't need any.

That's very honest of you. Appreciate it.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Wrong! My opening response to Jeeves was to ''define belief in God''.

Your opening response in the post I was referring to - the one I subsequently responded to. Your pedantry is yet a further show of defensiveness.

I said it implies that there may be something wrong with believing in God.

Yes, and you raising that as a possibility means you are "somehow suggesting that it is...". Suggesting... as in "may be...". That is what "suggest" means: to state a possibility.

Having had an awful lot of experience with vocal atheists, I'm quite sure that I'm not wrong, but if I am. Bite me.

So either accept what you say or leave you be??? Welcome to Jan's Wonderful World of Debating Strategy!

Do you see anything wrong with it?

No. Only with what some people might choose to do with that belief.

 

[Spellbound]

Thank you.

And thank you for the laugh!

Very likely. I don't watch it, so I can't comment on any episode specifically.

Not too perceptive are we?

No. To "believe in" is a phrase used particularly for matters of subjective judgment informed by emotion.

Wrong.

I believe, without the "in"

MAN you're dumb.

, a great many facts and theories set forth by persons better qualified than I am to evaluate them. My general criteria for credence regarding such matters are: 1/ is it plausible? 2/ who said it ? and 3/ does it work? And, of course, all such credence is provisional.

Then you clearly doubt that which is scientific. As to see is to believe. If I may say yet again, "oh you are so wise and intelligent."

 

[Jeeves]

"Believers have many and various reasons for their willing suspension of reason in this matter, but I don't pretend to understand all of them. "
How do you know if something is true?
And what is the justification for accepting that knowledge as truth?

Those are much larger questions than the scope of this thread.

From this [my brief definition of belief in god] would seem that you see belief in God as, an answer .

No. This was my answer to your question.

That we read about God in ancient texts, and have simply made a decision to believe that what is stated in those scriptures are true?

Certainly, a conscious decision must be made, once you are old enough to understand what it says and what it means. That's why most churches have an instruction and confirmation process to become a responsible member of the congregation.

How is it that we actually believe in God? Not where did we get the information from.

Those two conditions are connected. Everybody, except the original prophet of a religion, got their information from other people. Whether they end up believing depends to a very large extent on how convincing their teachers are. How people believe and why they believe are also related, but not quite so directly.

" I didn't infer [that the OP implied there is something with Americans believing in God].
What was 'rivers' response... ''Because they have no desire to evolve into thinking people.''
The funny thing is that no one has challenged that unprovoked attack as of yet.
How can he get away with that, unless it is the norm around here?

Rivers is as entitled to an opinion as you or I. Nobody in particular was attacked. If you want him punished, report the post and go to moderation.

" Always is probably a bit longer than you're familiar with."
What do you mean?

I mean, how could you possibly know what people have always believed? I doubt you have been present from the beginning of humankind.

The Abrahamic God, is simply a title people use to refer to specific types of religion. There isn't an ''Abrahamic God'' out there.

Out - where? In the world of synagogues, temples, churches and mosques, the God of Abraham is the one they worship. You demanded my definition of belief in God with a big G so I gave you my one which fits with the American theme.

It is simply God. And God is known through His unique characteristics, regardless of what He/It is called. There can only be one God, by definition of God (Supreme Cause of All causes).

See, you can make you own definition very nicely. What do you need mine for?

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Believers have many and various reasons for their willing suspension of reason in this matter, but I don't pretend to understand all of them. "

How do you know if something is true?
And what is the justification for accepting that knowledge as truth?

Those are much larger questions than the scope of this thread.

Not really. You mentioned believers suspending their reason in order to accept something as true, as if it is only exclusive to people who believe in God. Why would you do that? I only want to know how you (a non believer I assume) can know something to be true if you don't agree with Pascal.

No. This was my answer to your question.

Which seems to imply that.

Certainly, a conscious decision must be made, once you are old enough to understand what it says and what it means.

Certainly?
How so?

Those two conditions are connected. Everybody, except the original prophet of a religion, got their information from other people. Whether they end up believing depends to a very large extent on how convincing their teachers are. How people believe and why they believe are also related, but not quite so directly.

I agree that all information comes from at least a mind.
But I don't agree that we can genuinely believe in God because somebody convinced us.
Again ''belief in God'' needs to be defined for you to comprehend what you're trying to refer to. Otherwise you are just seeing it like an ordinary subject matter, where we have a choice as to whether or not God exists.

Rivers is as entitled to an opinion as you or I. Nobody in particular was attacked. If you want him punished, report the post and go to moderation.

He attacked all Christians (at least) by saying they are wilfully sub-human, and the reason is, they believe in God. That sounds like an attack to me.
There's no point in reporting him, as that kind of behaviour is far more tolerated than not, on this and many forums.

I mean, how could you possibly know what people have always believed? I doubt you have been present from the beginning of humankind.

God precedes man.
I have no reason to think or believe that God is a man made concept.
Do you have any reason to believe that it is? Or do you have any reason to believe that
God does not exist, therefore did not precede man?

jan.

 

[Jeeves]

I do have my reasons for the methods I employ to evaluate a statement or proposition, for when and why I believe something to be true - or not. But as I've already pointed out, twice, that is a different topic.

I accept your disagreement and/or dissatisfaction with what I've said.
I don't think I can make my position or my explanations any clearer: evidently, whichever words I employ 'suggest' or 'imply' something else to you, so this would just go on and on.

I don't see that as a productive use of our time.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no reason to think or believe that God is a man made concept.
Do you have any reason to believe that it is? Or do you have any reason to believe that
God does not exist, therefore did not precede man?

I think a lot of people are pretty comfortable with the adage extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The Bible et al*, as a source of documented witness accounts, unfortunately, makes quite a few claims that have been refuted (Adam and Eve are just one example), and as such, there is doubt cast upon just how reliable its accounts are.

*an admittedly over-simplified blanket term I am using to describe a wide array of scrptures

On the other hand, mankind inventing stuff to explain the world around him is so commonplace that it should be considered the null hypothesis. We know that this happens; it is human behavior; it can be demonstrated repeatedly, by an independent party in a lab setting. Thus it is not that big a stretch to plausibly attribute god to this same phenomenon. (If God did not exist, it would be uncharacteristic of humans not to invent one.)

All that being said, the hypothesis of God is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for a number of reasons, not the least of which because it is not falsifiable.

Which is why it fits better under philosophy.

Nonetheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence still applies.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I think a lot of people are pretty comfortable with the adage extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The Bible et al*, as a source of documented witness accounts, unfortunately, makes quite a few claims that have been refuted (Adam and Eve are just one example), and as such, there is doubt cast upon just how reliable its accounts are.

I didn't mention the Bible. Why did you?

On the other hand, mankind inventing stuff to explain the world around him is so commonplace that it should be considered the null hypothesis.

So you believe God was a concept invented by man, to explain the world around him? Based on this thinking.

We know that this happens; it is human behavior; it can be demonstrated repeatedly, by an independent party in a lab setting. Thus it is not that big a stretch to plausibly attribute god to this same phenomenon. (If God did not exist, it would be uncharacteristic of humans not to invent one.)

What human behaviour? Inventing stuff to explain the world? And you can demonstrate this in a lab?
The real funny part is where you assert that it's not a big stretch to plausibly attribute god (lower case g) to this same phenomenon. You're a funny guy.

All that being said, the hypothesis of God is not subject to scientific scrutiny, for a number of reasons, not the least of which because it is not falsifiable.

Define God.

Nonetheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence still applies.

Claiming belief in God is an extraordinary claim?
How so?

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn't mention the Bible. Why did you?

I am mentioning it as a tome of eyewitness accounts of seeing God directly, and acts explicitly attributed to him. If there are modern eyewitness accounts from impartial observers, or acts verifiably attributed to him, a lot of people are unaware of them.

So you believe God was a concept invented by man, to explain the world around him? Based on this thinking.

You asked if there is any reason to believe it is a human made concept.
I'm simply saying it is a plausible and consistent explanation - one that is fairly widely accepted.

What human behaviour? Inventing stuff to explain the world? And you can demonstrate this in a lab?

Yes, yes and yes.

The real funny part is where you assert that it's not a big stretch to plausibly attribute god (lower case g) to this same phenomenon.

Synchronicity, collective consciousness, chi energy, luck, superstition, astrology, destiny, fate - these are all structures that people create to explain things they don't understand. It is human nature to create explanations.

You're a funny guy.

I thought this was a serious conversation. I'm taking you seriously.
Address the issue, not the issuer.

Define God.

Means different things to different people. However, they can all be classified as supernatural.

Claiming belief in God is an extraordinary claim?
How so?

The premise is that there is something beyond this natural world which we see and experience directly. Like dark matter or aether, it would require compelling evidence to accept.
So far, everything we've observed seems to emerge from the four fundamental forces.

To be clear, I'm simply addressing your questions about whether there is reason to posit that God is a human construct.

 

[Jan Ardena]

To be clear, I'm simply addressing your questions about whether there is reason to posit that God is a human construct.

And so far you have failed to do so.

jan.