3 ms·

Why are people so against belief in God and even becoming Christian, if, as people see to believe, Christianity provides great benefit? There seem to be plenty

by yters 7y ago

Why are people so against belief in God and even becoming Christian, if, as people see to believe, Christianity provides great benefit? There seem to be plenty of good reasons to believe in God, at least, and Christianity's track record has many positives along with the negatives. Plus, the historical evidence for the New Testament's reliability is pretty good, if my understanding is correct. I'm not sure what is the hold back: - big need: existential despair - big solution: Christianity - no obstacle: Christianity is intellectually viable in our modern world UPDATE reply to replies since I'm rate limited on new comments: I'm saying Christianity fits "Believe only that for which there is evidence, and only for the time that there is evidence" 1. Good scientific evidence God exists 2. Good historical and archeological evidence the Bible is accurate 3. Historical evidence of the tremendous benefits of Christianity (see Rodney Stark), which flow logically from the principles of its founder Jesus, and seemingly more successful than can be explained by human inspiration I'd say at the very least Christianity holds up much better than the modern mythos of materialism and purposeless evolution. Perhaps don't accept Christianity, then, but certainly don't accept the modern secular narrative which is even worse evidentially speaking. It makes little sense to accept a bad explanation as default because you don't have a good explanation. In general, I do not see a internally consistent reason based on any modern criteria (enlightenment, postmodernism, positivism, etc.) for the widespread dismissal of theism and Christianity, and the clinging to atheism and extreme secularism.

playing_colours 7y ago
I cannot make myself believe in God, particularly, in God who notices and interferes, and dedicate myself to him; and I think it is the problem for many of us. Philosophically, Western society moved beyond good and evil, desecrated Christianity, questioned the words of God, and Nietzsche nailed it. Recently, I read the biography of Rockefeller by Chernow. It was stunning how his strong faith drove and motivated him. He thought he was blessed by God to build his business, he must fulfill this mission, and it justified some questionable actions he did.
- yters 7y ago
  I'm not talking about some particular conception of God, but there seem to be decent philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that there is a creative agency responsible for our universe. Furthermore, this agency seems to have taken particular care for our wellbeing. We've got to separate the question of existence from the question of nature. That God exists seems very evident from all we know. What God's nature is is more of a question mark, and we should not let this question mark about nature obviate what we know about existence. And belief in God is not a panacea, people do horrible things in the name of God, and perhaps even more horrible things in the absence. However, people have done very great things, perhaps the greatest things, in the name of God. So there is that, too. Also, in regards to your specific purpose you mention in the other thread of eliminating physical suffering, it seems Christianity in particular has done the most throughout history of eliminating physical suffering. Thus, insofar as your goal is to eliminate suffering, Christianity seems to be the most effective platform to do so. UPDATE to reply to this post, b/c I'm rate limited: It's one of those struggles you mention :) At least this one is about resolving ultimate meaning instead of ignoring it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- svieira 7y ago
  You cannot make yourself believe in God any more than you can make yourself believe in the grocery store clerk. Either they are and you interact with them, or they are not. Prayer is nothing more than talking with God, who is there. > Nietzsche nailed it. If God is not, Nietzsche is correct. If God is, then He is stronger than the universe, and the sight of His _back_ is enough to make you as radiant as the sun [1]. How gentle then, if He loves us, must He be with us, creatures of dust and ash as we are? > Third, a friend of mine asked me what evidence, if any, would be sufficient to convince me that the supernatural existed. This question stumped me. My philosophy at the time excluded the contemplation of the supernatural axiomatically: by definition (my definition) even the word "super-natural" was a contradiction in terms. Logic then said that, if my conclusions were definitional, they were circular. I was assuming the conclusion of the subject matter in dispute ... This meant that, logically, even if God existed, and manifested Himself to me, my philosophy would force me to reject the evidence of my senses, and dismiss any manifestations as a coincidence, hallucination, or dream. Under this hypothetical, my philosophy would force me to an exactly wrong conclusion due to structural errors of assumption. [2] [1]: Exodus 33-34 [2]: https://strangenotions.com/wright-conversion/
jddj 7y ago
Resolving to resign to a lifetime of cognitive dissonance is a big ask. Pretty good doesn't really fly, you'd be replacing an absence of meaning with a faith coupled with deeply-planted seeds of doubt which to me seem to be at least equally psychologically pernicious. It's also a different premise now that the context has shifted. We'd be moving from "Believe because it's the most coherent explanation we have", to "Believe only that for which there is evidence, and only for the time that there is evidence", to "Believe because it's the story we have which buries the existential dread the deepest". I'm suspicious that it would be a net win. We're at this point because many people over many years preferred to pursue a more concrete understanding of our surroundings and natural history. It might be likened to attempting to maintain a society-mandated belief in Santa Claus from birth until death because it makes for a more exciting Christmas morning.
- playing_colours 7y ago
  I like how you expressed it. The days of “free lunch”, easy answers from traditional religions are gone, and now every of us individually needs to do a hard work of finding a purpose.
jddj 7y ago
> I'm saying Christianity fits "Believe only that for which there is evidence, and only for the time that there is evidence" > 1. Good scientific evidence God exists I appreciate the reply, but I'm afraid we're each now too far outside of the other's respective worldviews to convince eachother of anything. I felt that the idea that there may be merit in a widespread return to theology to avoid existential dread was definitely worthy of a charitable response, but continuing further will be us talking past eachother. Enjoy your weekend :).
- yters 7y ago
  I appreciate it. I think your response has been valuable in pinpointing the main obstacle: people don't believe there is good scientific evidence that God exists. Have a good weekend yourself!

by yters 7y ago

playing_colours 7y ago

I cannot make myself believe in God, particularly, in God who notices and interferes, and dedicate myself to him; and I think it is the problem for many of us. Philosophically, Western society moved beyond good and evil, desecrated Christianity, questioned the words of God, and Nietzsche nailed it. Recently, I read the biography of Rockefeller by Chernow. It was stunning how his strong faith drove and motivated him. He thought he was blessed by God to build his business, he must fulfill this mission, and it justified some questionable actions he did.

yters 7y ago
I'm not talking about some particular conception of God, but there seem to be decent philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that there is a creative agency responsible for our universe. Furthermore, this agency seems to have taken particular care for our wellbeing. We've got to separate the question of existence from the question of nature. That God exists seems very evident from all we know. What God's nature is is more of a question mark, and we should not let this question mark about nature obviate what we know about existence. And belief in God is not a panacea, people do horrible things in the name of God, and perhaps even more horrible things in the absence. However, people have done very great things, perhaps the greatest things, in the name of God. So there is that, too. Also, in regards to your specific purpose you mention in the other thread of eliminating physical suffering, it seems Christianity in particular has done the most throughout history of eliminating physical suffering. Thus, insofar as your goal is to eliminate suffering, Christianity seems to be the most effective platform to do so. UPDATE to reply to this post, b/c I'm rate limited: It's one of those struggles you mention :) At least this one is about resolving ultimate meaning instead of ignoring it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
svieira 7y ago
You cannot make yourself believe in God any more than you can make yourself believe in the grocery store clerk. Either they are and you interact with them, or they are not. Prayer is nothing more than talking with God, who is there. > Nietzsche nailed it. If God is not, Nietzsche is correct. If God is, then He is stronger than the universe, and the sight of His _back_ is enough to make you as radiant as the sun [1]. How gentle then, if He loves us, must He be with us, creatures of dust and ash as we are? > Third, a friend of mine asked me what evidence, if any, would be sufficient to convince me that the supernatural existed. This question stumped me. My philosophy at the time excluded the contemplation of the supernatural axiomatically: by definition (my definition) even the word "super-natural" was a contradiction in terms. Logic then said that, if my conclusions were definitional, they were circular. I was assuming the conclusion of the subject matter in dispute ... This meant that, logically, even if God existed, and manifested Himself to me, my philosophy would force me to reject the evidence of my senses, and dismiss any manifestations as a coincidence, hallucination, or dream. Under this hypothetical, my philosophy would force me to an exactly wrong conclusion due to structural errors of assumption. [2] [1]: Exodus 33-34 [2]: https://strangenotions.com/wright-conversion/

jddj 7y ago

Resolving to resign to a lifetime of cognitive dissonance is a big ask. Pretty good doesn't really fly, you'd be replacing an absence of meaning with a faith coupled with deeply-planted seeds of doubt which to me seem to be at least equally psychologically pernicious. It's also a different premise now that the context has shifted. We'd be moving from "Believe because it's the most coherent explanation we have", to "Believe only that for which there is evidence, and only for the time that there is evidence", to "Believe because it's the story we have which buries the existential dread the deepest". I'm suspicious that it would be a net win. We're at this point because many people over many years preferred to pursue a more concrete understanding of our surroundings and natural history. It might be likened to attempting to maintain a society-mandated belief in Santa Claus from birth until death because it makes for a more exciting Christmas morning.

playing_colours 7y ago
I like how you expressed it. The days of “free lunch”, easy answers from traditional religions are gone, and now every of us individually needs to do a hard work of finding a purpose.

jddj 7y ago

> I'm saying Christianity fits "Believe only that for which there is evidence, and only for the time that there is evidence" > 1. Good scientific evidence God exists I appreciate the reply, but I'm afraid we're each now too far outside of the other's respective worldviews to convince eachother of anything. I felt that the idea that there may be merit in a widespread return to theology to avoid existential dread was definitely worthy of a charitable response, but continuing further will be us talking past eachother. Enjoy your weekend :).

yters 7y ago
I appreciate it. I think your response has been valuable in pinpointing the main obstacle: people don't believe there is good scientific evidence that God exists. Have a good weekend yourself!