We had a whole thread about faith not too long ago. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence (c.f. the expression "leap of faith", for example). The waters are somewhat muddied by different usages of the word "faith" to mean different things. For example, faith is not the same as trust. But we've been through all that.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.
Faith is the description of the belief rather than the reason for it.So we cannot use faith as a reason why many Americans believe in God, as it is not exclusive to religious belief.
The non-believer (in God) does not have faith (in God's existence). It is possible, however, to simultaneously not believe in God and yet still have faith-based beliefs in other things.The idea that there is one type of faith for a believer and another for a non believer, is a nonsense.
Belief in God is no different from belief in god(s). In fact, your God is just one conception of god(s).But if you are adamant, then please define 'belief in God' (note upper case g).
Today I heard an American on my radio claiming that it is impossible that humans could be causing global warming. Why? Because, the man said, God has given the world to human beings and made it perfect for us. If we try to damage it, God prevents that. In other words, God will always protect the planet He has given to us to exploit as we wish.The first question implies that there may be some sort of problem with many Americans believing in God.
By the same token, it is entirely normal human behaviour to believe in astrology, in the effectiveness of sacrifices to deities and in divining the future. It is entirely normal human behaviour to believe that the Earth is flat, that diseases are caused by evil spirits, that woman are inferior to men, that all things are made of four elements (earth, air, fire, water), that hereditary rule is the best form of government, that it is appropriate to hurt or kill (some) other human beings, and so on and so forth.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.
In your case, belief in God means you think that a supernatural being exists who created the universe. Doesn't it?I don't wish to depart from the OP. I'm asking you to define belief in God.
I don't believe that a supernatural being created the universe. Lacking a belief needs no justification. Belief is what needs justification. For example, there's no need for me to justify why I don't believe that a pink unicorn called Rex lives in the White House, surviving solely on a diet of jelly beans that are grown in the garden there. I think you'd probably want some justification before you agreed to join the Church of Rex. But I think you'd be quite content with withholding your belief in the glory of Rex even though you have no justification for that.What is it, exactly, you don't believe in? And what is the justification for your lack of belief.
That's OK; you don't need to agree with it. There is room for all viewpoints. As I said, some people simply require more evidence than others.And so far you have failed to do so.
me said:Claiming belief in God is an extraordinary claim?
How so?
you said: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.
DaveC...
That is not the premise Dave.
You need to work with a proper definition of God before you can find out whether or not the claim is extraordinary.
So what is YOUR definition of the God you don't believe in?
You have no definition of God, so how can you posit such a reason.
Are you prepared to discuss the concept of God, Dave?
jan.
The scientific mindset, i.e. the discipline of thought that scientists use to understand the physical world, implicitly uses Ockham's Razor. In other words, no unnecessary additional hypotheses should be included in our account of things. That's to keep things as simple as we can, consistent with accounting for the observational evidence. And it works brilliantly well for its intended purpose.
Some people (though I am not one) adopt this approach as an entire worldview. That is perfectly reasonable. They are under no obligation to define "God" in order to reject the concept, any more than they need to define a million other arbitrary concepts that are not necessary to an empirical, scientifically based worldview.
any more than they need to define a million other arbitrary concepts that are not necessary to an empirical, scientifically based worldview.
There is a lot to be said for this: at the very least, it puts a lot of delusional junk and superstition in the bin and leads to a degree of clarity of thought.
So I think the burden rests on you to define "God" in a way that Dave considers relevant to his worldview - if you can. I suspect you cannot, if Dave is one the people I have been describing above.
How can one describe God as an unnecessary additional hypotheses, without defining God.
Oh but they do define God, to the point where it suits their world view (unnecessary additional hypotheses).
Based on this segment, they define God yet again (for their own sakes) as arbitrary, unnecessary concepts.
The real question is, why do they define God at all (albeit wrongly) for the sake of their work.
We already know scientists aren't going to find God through their profession.
I think Dave has a proper definition of God, but will not discuss it.
I believe he is in denial.
jan.
I repeat, you do not need to define a concept that is unnecessary to explaining what we observe. Does "God" appear, anywhere, in the theories of science? No of course not. Why not? Because no such concept is required for them to work. That's it, end of story.
I'm not disputing that. I think we stand as much chance finding God through science as finding a real live miniature dinosaur in a Christmas cracker . My point is, they already define God by rendering God unnecessary, or a violation of Occam's Razor.
jan.
Nobody, in any discipline, wastes time defining concepts they do not use.
In the same way one can rule out Russell's teapot without having to define what colour it is.How can one describe God as an unnecessary additional hypotheses, without defining God.
we have to know what it means to believe in God
Define "belief in God".
I'm asking you to define belief in God.
you must have a definition of what it is to ''believe in God''.
You have no definition of God, so how can you posit such a reason.
Obviously, they will give their definition, not yours. And they didn't make up the definition. Every time you ask: "What is it you don't believe?" they cite the god of the religion(s) they have witnessed, as described by the literature of those religions, or as told to them by believers in the god.Oh but they do define God, to the point where it suits their world view (unnecessary additional hypotheses).
Except mine.And every time somebody tries to give a definition, you say, No, that's wrong.
You think s/he will refute the assertion that God is supernatural?I tried that early on. No luck.
I have an idea of pink unicorns too. My idea of pink unicorns does not have to be the same as yours in order for me to surmise that the universe will survive without pink unicorns.I think Dave has a proper definition of God, but will not discuss it.
I believe he is in denial.