Why do people believe in god?

Fraggle Rocker said:
I'm not convinced of that. Jung wrote about archetypes and the collective unconscious at a time when DNA research was barely getting started. Today we would say that instincts are programmed into our synapses by DNA.

We might also rephrase Jung and say that the more-than-ninety-percent universal belief in the supernatural, and specifically in a creator, indicates that this belief is an instinct. While many instincts are clearly survival traits, such as the almost universal instinct among higher animals to run away from a large creature with both eyes in front of its face, there's no reason not to assume that some instincts are also the result of genetic bottlenecks or genetic drift, and exist for no reason except sheer chance.

It's possible that somewhere in our genetic ancestry the instinct to believe in God sneaked into our gene pool, and due to a horribly unfortunate set of random circumstances, all of us have it.

Or almost all of us, since my family seems not to.
Click to expand...

It is still a learned concept methinks. If a child was left alone to its own devices in the wild would it conceive of a theism?
 
SciWriter said:
Yes, 'God' not seen, which does suggest…
Click to expand...
Do you see a gravity? Do you see an air? How about love?

That is not the proper scientific approach. That is what I call cultural bias and prejudice. When analyzing theism or religions we must be open-minded and be as objective as humanly possible and this can only be done by understanding other cultures/religions and having nothing at stake whatever the most recent evidence is suggesting. This helps eliminate cultural bias/prejudice and make anything uncovered sound more plausible. Every religion which suggests in the existence of one or more gods needs to be analyzed and scrutinized until proven with substantial evidence to be false. We must assume every religion to be a possibility until the time comes when future generations will find out the real truth with their more advanced technologies and harder evidence.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
I don't think you can fully believe that there is no God. It's an on-going struggle. Can you cite a specific evidence to suggest that there is no God?
Click to expand...
Once again folks, let me make a few things clear.
  • 1. This is the COMPARATIVE RELIGION subforum, not the RELIGION subforum. This is by definition one of the science forums, albeit the "soft science" of psychology.
  • 2. Therefore the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is the guide for all arguments.
  • 3. One of the principles that comprises the scientific method is that IT IS NEVER NECESSARY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. The burden of evidence and the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the party who asserts the positive.
  • 4. The reason for this is that otherwise every crackpot who walks in with a preposterous assertion could demand that we prove that it is NOT TRUE. This would dissipate the finite time, energy and other resources of science and scientists, so that no progress could ever be made. (This is also the reason for the Rule of Laplace or Sagan's Law, another important principle in science.)
Therefore, the burden of evidence and the burden of proof falls on the party who claims that THERE IS A GOD. We are not required to prove that there is no god, any more than we are required to prove that there are no UFOs, no Loch Ness Monster, or no Fraggles. (Omigod did I really say that? :()

You, sir, are obligated to present evidence THAT THERE IS A GOD. (If that is indeed your assertion. I recognize that many of the arguments set forth on these threads about religion are just straw men.) Otherwise the negative is PRESUMED.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
You, sir, are obligated to present evidence THAT THERE IS A GOD. (If that is indeed your assertion. I recognize that many of the arguments set forth on these threads about religion are just straw men.) Otherwise the negative is PRESUMED.
Click to expand...
All the religious people in the past who may have originally believed rationally and logically in what they were preaching in most religions of the world are now dead (e.g. the prophets, people who have been directly contacted by angels etc). Hence, they cannot be contacted now and further more evidence to be provided by them.

*Edit: Today in many cultures and religions, children are forced into an indoctrination system, by their parents and society into a faith where they are only given a religious text to analyze and groomed to believe everything in it. This is second-hand evidence and some people here would say these texts are not real proof. Assuming this to be the case, then all the believers of the world today believe irrationally and illogically in their religion, because it is not scientifically proven and because most likely they themselves wouldn’t have personally experienced any of the supernatural phenomena which have been mentioned in these texts that they are forced to believe in, in fear of the Hell-fire or other reasons. The fact that most people believe illogically and irrationally in a false and scientifically unproven religion through the forced indocrination is everyone’s problem too, not just the people that are part of the particular faith. It is humanity’s problem and we need to address this. Adopting a detached "not my problem" attitude won’t stop people from believing in these things. Historically, Islam, Christianity and religion in general has caused extensive loss of life on a global scale. It has restricted one’s freedom and put limitations in what the people that are part of the faith can or cannot do how to act and basically how to live their lives. If all the religions of the world are false then it has for no good reason caused much inconvenience to the lives of millions of people throughout the millennia and much unnecessary pain and suffering globally. If you want people to open their eyes to rational thinking as you’d probably like to call it, then someone needs to find some extraordinary proof. We already have the Theory of Evolution which scared a lot of people when it was first publicly debated, now’s the time to go the extra-mile and make it fact. Religion is an obstacle which must be broken through if we want to create a more civilized society where there is mutual understanding between people and irrational stigmas broken.

It is also unnatural for a religious follower to find the scientific evidence because assuming that religion is irrational then it shouldn’t logically mix with science which is rational. An extremely rational, objective and open-minded scientist needs to find these proofs because being part of the scientific community it is his/her responsibility to prove or disprove. Just like how it is the responsibility of those countries which have lots of money to eliminate poverty, it is the responsibility of the scientists to provide scientific evidence to the irrationally-minded about their beliefs and why they are wrong logically. Sure you may be hated or threatened by many believers of a faith at first but future generations would be very grateful (assuming you can find proof), just like how Thomas Henry Huxley, Charles Darwin and a few other notable figures are today for their contributions to science.
 
SciWriter said:
Yes, we can detect and measure gravity, can sample air and identify its components and feel moving air, and we know about bonding hormones.
Click to expand...
Everything you said proves the existance of God. :)

Energy, and the existance of natural laws. The understanding that the source of all that exists had to be eternal (which is the conclusion both athiests and theist agree on) what that source is, is understood differently be both parties. Athiests say its the universe or some other natural force that is unkown while theists say it is God a super natural being.
 
People are born with a belief in God it is put their by God so if you want the answer to the OP's question 'Why do people believe in God'? Ask God.
 
universaldistress said:
It is still a learned concept methinks. If a child was left alone to its own devices in the wild would it conceive of a theism?
Click to expand...

I remember that in my early years I never though of God or that God existed. I wonder how many people can say that they realized on their own that God exists somewhere.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Everything you said proves the existance of God. :)

Energy, and the existance of natural laws. The understanding that the source of all that exists had to be eternal (which is the conclusion both athiests and theist agree on) what that source is, is understood differently be both parties. Athiests say its the universe or some other natural force that is unkown while theists say it is God a super natural being.
Click to expand...

If God ever existed, it doesn't mean God still exists.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Brain death is more tricky. The absence of cortical activity (brain death) is often termed persistant vegetative state. The body can sustain life, but the 'person' has gone. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Once the higher order centers of the brain are destroyed, even if the body could be kept alive (say by the brain stem) the "person" is dead.


Are you asking if we are "dead" as in "individual" when we loose consciousness? I suppose one could make that point - that the individual may not be in existence during lose of consciousness. That individual is only in existence in real time?
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Once again folks, let me make a few things clear.
  • 1. This is the COMPARATIVE RELIGION subforum, not the RELIGION subforum. This is by definition one of the science forums, albeit the "soft science" of psychology.
  • 2. Therefore the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is the guide for all arguments.
  • 3. One of the principles that comprises the scientific method is that IT IS NEVER NECESSARY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. The burden of evidence and the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the party who asserts the positive.
  • 4. The reason for this is that otherwise every crackpot who walks in with a preposterous assertion could demand that we prove that it is NOT TRUE. This would dissipate the finite time, energy and other resources of science and scientists, so that no progress could ever be made. (This is also the reason for the Rule of Laplace or Sagan's Law, another important principle in science.)
Therefore, the burden of evidence and the burden of proof falls on the party who claims that THERE IS A GOD. We are not required to prove that there is no god, any more than we are required to prove that there are no UFOs, no Loch Ness Monster, or no Fraggles. (Omigod did I really say that? :()

You, sir, are obligated to present evidence THAT THERE IS A GOD. (If that is indeed your assertion. I recognize that many of the arguments set forth on these threads about religion are just straw men.) Otherwise the negative is PRESUMED.
Click to expand...

Yea, and im not required to prove there is a God, because I don't mind if you don't believe there is.
 
elte said:
I remember that in my early years I never though of God or that God existed. I wonder how many people can say that they realized on their own that God exists somewhere.
Click to expand...

Eventually every man will wonder why, that will bring them to God.
 
I just had to see what Knowledge91 was going to say.

It not unlike looking at a car accident..
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
Therefore, the burden of evidence and the burden of proof falls on the party who claims that THERE IS A GOD. We are not required to prove that there is no god
Click to expand...
Unless of course, you claim that something is true, for instance, someone claims that it's true that GOD does not exist.
Then that someone is required to prove their claim, that's the rule.

Since it's impossible to prove it, and certainly very improbable that any "proof" can be displayed on a computer screen, any such claim can be dismissed as speculative.

However, suppose someone claims that an experience exists, and doesn't claim that this experience is GOD, or any "proof" of such a thing. Instead, the experience they claim exists is something you can form any opinion of you so choose, that you can label any way you like, and it won't change the experience.

Suppose further, that someone claiming the existence of this experience says it isn't something they can show you, as such, but they can show you how to experience it--what to do. In other words, it involves experimentation--you carry out the procedure, and you get a result, or not.

Either way, no harm done, no claims about GOD, only about experience which any scientist should know is not something that can be shared. It's something very simple, like telling someone there's a good movie showing they should go and see. If you recommend a movie to someone, you don't expect them to ask you to "prove" to them that you enjoyed it, do you? You don't ask someone who tells you they saw a good movie to show you how good it was.

No, a movie experiment requires that you go to a movie theatre, buy a ticket and see it for yourself. You could I suppose send someone else on your behalf, but that isn't going to give you "the experience", is it?
 
arfa brane said:
Unless of course, you claim that something is true, for instance, someone claims that it's true that GOD does not exist.
Then that someone is required to prove their claim, that's the rule.
Click to expand...

One can switch presence and absence so easily in these hypotheses? In certain cases, yes, but surely not broadly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top