6 ms·

I believe in God for a number of reasons. Firstly, it just seems much more plausible that someone created the universe. If we walked in to the middle of nowher

by JR1427 3y ago

I believe in God for a number of reasons. Firstly, it just seems much more plausible that someone created the universe. If we walked in to the middle of nowhere and saw a beautiful statue, most of us would say "wow, I wonder who made it?" not "wow, what an incredible coincidence that this thing which has meaning to me just spontaneously formed". Another main reason is that I _feel_ like there is a God, and generally my feelings tell me things. When I feel hungry, I don't think "ah, but that feeling is only an illusion!" instead I go and eat. I feel like there is a God, so I go and eat. p.s. I'm not trying to convince anyone here, just putting my thoughts out there in case they are helpful to anyone else.

alt227 3y ago
I started writing a reply about how this is the 'infinite monkeys' argument, however on rereading your reply it looks like this is not correct. It seems like you are saying you base your reality on your feelings. To extend your examples, what do you think when you look up in the sky and see a Goodyear blimp? Do you think 'Wow look at that blimp, what a modern miracle that humans have made things that can fly" or do you go buy tires? EDIT: I dont mean to detract from or insult your beliefs in anyway. They sound very nice :)
- JR1427 3y ago
  Ha, I've not seen a blimp in a long time! I think I'd probably think both those things :P I wouldn't say that I _only_ base my view of reality on my feelings, but I don't discount them just because they might be hard to explain. I think our feelings, as well as our thoughts, should be listened to. Not that it really makes any difference, but I have a science background (PhD, post-doc) so am used to thinking about evidence, so I hope you don't get the impression that I'm just too stupid to be an atheist! I appreciate your respectful reply, though. It's actually fun when you can exchange a few thoughts with people on the internet in a respectful way.
  - JR1427 3y ago
    As a side note, I also spent a period mentally tallying up the (sometimes famous) people on both sides of the God debate. When I discovered that someone I admire/respect believed in God, I'd add a mental mark on one column, and when I discovered someone else I admire/respect who doesn't, I'd add a mark in the other column. Both columns became full pretty quickly, so I concluded that someone's point of view on God cannot be a case of intellect or integrity. This at least helped me not feel insecure about my beliefs on that front. One reason why I don't hide my beliefs (although I rarely flaunt them, either) is so anyone else carrying out the same exercise has some more data. They might of course choose to put me in a "stupid believer" category, but that is up to them!
  - haswell 3y ago
    > I think our feelings, as well as our thoughts, should be listened to But why? Not asking to be difficult; I'm trying to understand why we should listen to either. I've learned that my thoughts are often filled with unhelpful nonsense baked into me at an early age by the conditioning of traumatized parents. I've learned that I can change the kinds of thoughts that I have by learning new skills and reframing situations so that the next time I encounter a situation that would lead to unhelpful nonsense thoughts, those are no longer the default reaction. My thoughts aren't me - they're the results of processes in my brain. I've learned that often the most useful thing is to not listen to my thoughts, because they're spinning narratives that simply aren't true ("I'm worthless", "everything is my fault", "<person> must be thinking awful things about me", etc). Our interpretation of feelings are mediated by thought. Given the susceptibility of thought to conditioning and external shaping, what makes a feeling worth listening to? To be clear, I'm not saying that thoughts/feelings are never useful or true. We depend on them to make sense of the world and to survive our environment. I'm saying that they're often not true, and this raises the question: what differentiates the useful/true ones from the ones that are not? Simply having the thought/feeling isn't enough. I went through a period of time in my life when I experienced thoughts/feelings "as me". I felt identical to them. Once I realized that they're appearances in consciousness alongside every other appearance in consciousness: sights, sounds, physical sensations, smells, etc., my relationship with thoughts/feelings shifted. I appear to be closer to "that which is aware" of these appearances in consciousness. When you start observing these thoughts/feelings playing out from a distance, it becomes increasingly clear that they're often just plain wrong, but wrong for understandable reasons (e.g. the anxious brain borne of childhood trauma).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
IncreasePosts 3y ago
Most of us would say "Wow, I wonder who made it" about a statue, but not a tree that is growing next to it.
f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago
> I believe in God for a number of reasons. I'm not sure that what you describe as "reasons" actually qualify as reasons. > Firstly, it just seems much more plausible that someone created the universe. Why is that more plausible? You think that there is "an uncaused thing," which you call "God," and that this uncaused thing created the universe. Why is that more plausible than the uncaused thing being the universe itself? The universe manifestly exists; your idea of "someone" who created it does not (it may exist, but does not manifestly exist in the way the universe does). > If we walked in to the middle of nowhere and saw a beautiful statue, most of us would say "wow, > I wonder who made it?" not "wow, what an incredible coincidence that this thing which has > meaning to me just spontaneously formed". This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. > Another main reason is that I _feel_ like there is a God, and generally my feelings tell me > things. When I feel hungry, I don't think "ah, but that feeling is only an illusion!" instead I > go and eat. This conflates two very different senses of the words "feel" and "feelings." Hunger is a biological sensation; your "feeling" that there is a God is not and is a very, very different kind of "feeling." Consider this: if you had been left alone on a desert island as a child, with no other humans around, you would still feel hunger, because that is a natural, biological sensation. But you almost certainly would not have the "feeling" you have now that there is a God, and even if you did, that God would even more certainly not have the characteristics you ascribe to it now. The "God" that you "feel" exists, which has whatever characteristics you ascribe to it, is a social construct. In the absence of a social environment, it is vanishingly unlikely that you would construct a similar idea on your own. Again, this "feeling" is not at all like hunger: it is a purely psychological phenomenon in a way that "feeling" hungry is not. Using the words "feel" and "feeling" in these two different ways confuses the issue rather than clarifies it. > I feel like there is a God, so I go and eat. This is not really even intelligible.
- knightoffaith 3y ago
  >This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. Are you implying that belief that the universe was intelligently designed necessarily implies belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, among other beliefs? That doesn't seem right.

by JR1427 3y ago

alt227 3y ago

I started writing a reply about how this is the 'infinite monkeys' argument, however on rereading your reply it looks like this is not correct. It seems like you are saying you base your reality on your feelings. To extend your examples, what do you think when you look up in the sky and see a Goodyear blimp? Do you think 'Wow look at that blimp, what a modern miracle that humans have made things that can fly" or do you go buy tires? EDIT: I dont mean to detract from or insult your beliefs in anyway. They sound very nice :)

JR1427 3y ago
Ha, I've not seen a blimp in a long time! I think I'd probably think both those things :P I wouldn't say that I _only_ base my view of reality on my feelings, but I don't discount them just because they might be hard to explain. I think our feelings, as well as our thoughts, should be listened to. Not that it really makes any difference, but I have a science background (PhD, post-doc) so am used to thinking about evidence, so I hope you don't get the impression that I'm just too stupid to be an atheist! I appreciate your respectful reply, though. It's actually fun when you can exchange a few thoughts with people on the internet in a respectful way.
- JR1427 3y ago
  As a side note, I also spent a period mentally tallying up the (sometimes famous) people on both sides of the God debate. When I discovered that someone I admire/respect believed in God, I'd add a mental mark on one column, and when I discovered someone else I admire/respect who doesn't, I'd add a mark in the other column. Both columns became full pretty quickly, so I concluded that someone's point of view on God cannot be a case of intellect or integrity. This at least helped me not feel insecure about my beliefs on that front. One reason why I don't hide my beliefs (although I rarely flaunt them, either) is so anyone else carrying out the same exercise has some more data. They might of course choose to put me in a "stupid believer" category, but that is up to them!
- haswell 3y ago
  > I think our feelings, as well as our thoughts, should be listened to But why? Not asking to be difficult; I'm trying to understand why we should listen to either. I've learned that my thoughts are often filled with unhelpful nonsense baked into me at an early age by the conditioning of traumatized parents. I've learned that I can change the kinds of thoughts that I have by learning new skills and reframing situations so that the next time I encounter a situation that would lead to unhelpful nonsense thoughts, those are no longer the default reaction. My thoughts aren't me - they're the results of processes in my brain. I've learned that often the most useful thing is to not listen to my thoughts, because they're spinning narratives that simply aren't true ("I'm worthless", "everything is my fault", "<person> must be thinking awful things about me", etc). Our interpretation of feelings are mediated by thought. Given the susceptibility of thought to conditioning and external shaping, what makes a feeling worth listening to? To be clear, I'm not saying that thoughts/feelings are never useful or true. We depend on them to make sense of the world and to survive our environment. I'm saying that they're often not true, and this raises the question: what differentiates the useful/true ones from the ones that are not? Simply having the thought/feeling isn't enough. I went through a period of time in my life when I experienced thoughts/feelings "as me". I felt identical to them. Once I realized that they're appearances in consciousness alongside every other appearance in consciousness: sights, sounds, physical sensations, smells, etc., my relationship with thoughts/feelings shifted. I appear to be closer to "that which is aware" of these appearances in consciousness. When you start observing these thoughts/feelings playing out from a distance, it becomes increasingly clear that they're often just plain wrong, but wrong for understandable reasons (e.g. the anxious brain borne of childhood trauma).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

IncreasePosts 3y ago

Most of us would say "Wow, I wonder who made it" about a statue, but not a tree that is growing next to it.

f30e3dfed1c9 3y ago

> I believe in God for a number of reasons. I'm not sure that what you describe as "reasons" actually qualify as reasons. > Firstly, it just seems much more plausible that someone created the universe. Why is that more plausible? You think that there is "an uncaused thing," which you call "God," and that this uncaused thing created the universe. Why is that more plausible than the uncaused thing being the universe itself? The universe manifestly exists; your idea of "someone" who created it does not (it may exist, but does not manifestly exist in the way the universe does). > If we walked in to the middle of nowhere and saw a beautiful statue, most of us would say "wow, > I wonder who made it?" not "wow, what an incredible coincidence that this thing which has > meaning to me just spontaneously formed". This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. > Another main reason is that I _feel_ like there is a God, and generally my feelings tell me > things. When I feel hungry, I don't think "ah, but that feeling is only an illusion!" instead I > go and eat. This conflates two very different senses of the words "feel" and "feelings." Hunger is a biological sensation; your "feeling" that there is a God is not and is a very, very different kind of "feeling." Consider this: if you had been left alone on a desert island as a child, with no other humans around, you would still feel hunger, because that is a natural, biological sensation. But you almost certainly would not have the "feeling" you have now that there is a God, and even if you did, that God would even more certainly not have the characteristics you ascribe to it now. The "God" that you "feel" exists, which has whatever characteristics you ascribe to it, is a social construct. In the absence of a social environment, it is vanishingly unlikely that you would construct a similar idea on your own. Again, this "feeling" is not at all like hunger: it is a purely psychological phenomenon in a way that "feeling" hungry is not. Using the words "feel" and "feeling" in these two different ways confuses the issue rather than clarifies it. > I feel like there is a God, so I go and eat. This is not really even intelligible.

knightoffaith 3y ago
>This is a variant of a common creationist argument, often promoted by those who prefer the term "intelligent design" to "creationism." But so-called "intelligent design" is just a variant of hard-core creationism. Are you implying that belief that the universe was intelligently designed necessarily implies belief that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, among other beliefs? That doesn't seem right.