Well, why?

[inocente]

The claim ‘Picasso’s painting Guernica is a great work of artistic genius’ is also a claim about the outside world. One for which we have no empirical evidence at all.

But we have loads of empirical evidence.

The purpose of Picasso’s painting is to express our outrage at our own inhumanity. Using a wordless cartoon he communicates that to the vast majority who see it. So to say that he did a bang-up job is very much an empirical claim (“empirical - based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory”).

Running with that definition, religious people find meaning in both secular and religious works, while atheists don’t. Is that an empirical claim that atheists have less meaning in their lives?

 

[LilyM]

But we have loads of empirical evidence.

The purpose of Picasso’s painting is to express our outrage at our own inhumanity. Using a wordless cartoon he communicates that to the vast majority who see it. So to say that he did a bang-up job is very much an empirical claim (“empirical - based on what is experienced or seen rather than on theory”).

Running with that definition, religious people find meaning in both secular and religious works, while atheists don’t. Is that an empirical claim that atheists have less meaning in their lives?

Ahh - if empirical claims are based on experience, and the vast - VAST - majority of people will, if you ask, happily tell you that they have experienced God in one fashion or another, then why don’t atheists accept THAT empirical evidence - based on the experience of these people - of His existence, as they do the evidence for Guernica’s genius?

‘Because I haven’t experienced God’, the atheist might say. So, I’m sure, have some people stood in front of Guernica and experienced … nothing. Does the fact that they failed to experience anything of the ‘genius’ of the painting mean it ISN’T genius? Of course not. Neither does the fact that the atheist hasn’t experienced God.

 

[Luke_K]

Why believe in one God if no empirical evidence supports God’s existence?

I believe that empirical observations do support the existence of an intelligent Creator. The fact that innumerable mindless atoms blindly following physical laws can all come together and work towards the same, purposeful end, and give rise to intelligent self-consciousness is a kind of evidence. Think about the computer you’re sitting at. You could give the universe however long you want and it would never produce that computer without an intelligent mind directing the matter and energy around it to make that computer. (Imagine if the universe even put the Dell logo on it )

Of course life came about by natural means, but so did that computer. No physical laws were broken in making the computer, but it still required an intelligent mind to order the matter and energy into that form.

This is not proof of course, and it can by easily dismissed by viewing humans as nothing more than complex bags of chemicals affecting the world around them, but it gives a reason to believe based solely on natural observations. My college studies focus on materials science and bioengineering, and they have very much supported my faith so far. My friend studies biochemistry, and he is fascinated by living systems in the same way as me.

To extend this thought-why then be Christian and not any other religion?

I think it has the best claim to Divine revelation and the best theology. It’s important to mention that Christianity believes Judaism is true as well. It’s just that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism because Jesus was the prophesied Messiah. Islam is an unnecessary and unjustified addition to the Abrahamic tradition, and I put Muhammad in the same category as Joseph Smith.

Also, I have found in my life that Jesus’ words are true. He claimed that those who follow him will find rest, will be set free, will have the light of life, and will have “rivers of living water flow from within him,” among other things. My experience of living a sacramental life in Christ has resulted in these things that Jesus said it would.

I have tested Christianity, and if I wish to be honest with myself I must conclude that it has more truth than a secular life. If I were to deny Christ after what I’ve lived through, I would be a liar.

 

[ddarko]

Why believe in one God if no empirical evidence supports God’s existence?

To extend this thought-why then be Christian and not any other religion?

For your first question, we believe tons of things that do not have empirical evidence. Logical axioms, the fact that other beings exist apart from me and they are not a figment of my imagination etc. Therefore, not all truths need empirical backing. We believe in logical axioms since its truth is a necessity.

Secondly, God is a necessity for our existence. Without God, there is no meaning. We can create illusions for our existence but once again, they are just illusions. If God does not exist, nothing really matters including whether you believe in the truth or lies. The concept of God is the perfect entity that answers the question of our existence. He is a necessity. Even atheist have to implicitly assume that he exists in their daily lives.

Thirdly, Christians believe that Christ was resurrected and our church fathers did indeed see him after that. Thus God has given us proof of his existence. But it is correct to say that we cannot discover God empirically. We can only discover God if he chooses to reveal himself. Fortunately, he has and the entire Bible is about his revelation to humanity.

Now for your final question, to why believe in Christianity.
As I mentioned above, God is the ultimate answer to the meaning of our existence. He is an ontological necessity. Now if we truly understand the question we are asking about our existence, the Christian God is the best solution to the ultimate question. Other definitions are either morally inadequate or logically inconsistent. Thus it is why we choose Christianity over any other religion. Its description of God is the only possible one that answers the question in full.

God Bless

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter2: Uh huh. And how did you come to this metaphysical knowledge of god?

If you have evidence of it, then we can talk about how good your evidence is, and we’re right back to square one. If you have no evidence, then you don’t have knowledge of it at all.

Choose your poison.

You don’t seem to have the capacity to understand metaphysical truths.

 

[timotheos]

Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking at the simpletons who had gone off to Fátima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterwards he trembled from head to foot and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to our Lady.

That’s why.

 

[AntiTheist]

Ahh - if empirical claims are based on experience, and the vast - VAST - majority of people will, if you ask, happily tell you that they have experienced God in one fashion or another, then why don’t atheists accept THAT empirical evidence - based on the experience of these people - of His existence, as they do the evidence for Guernica’s genius?

Again: “Guernica is a work of genius” is a value claim, not a fact claim. Putting it in the same category as the claim, “A disembodied intelligence exists” is making an enormous category error.

Now, people’s experience of various gods – and people of all different religions report experiencing all kinds of gods – is evidence that human beings tend to have feelings that they describe as spiritual, just as people’s experience of a painting as being cool tells us that a lot of people experience that paining as cool.

In both cases, the claim is something about the world inside people’s heads.

If you wanted to make a claim about the world outside of your head, you need evidence from outside people’s heads.

Your feelings can’t prove that a conspiracy is out to get you, and your feelings can’t prove that a god exists. I’m sorry. That’s not how things work.

Luke K:

The fact that innumerable mindless atoms blindly following physical laws can all come together and work towards the same, purposeful end, and give rise to intelligent self-consciousness is a kind of evidence.

Yes, it is. It’s evidence that blind laws can give rise to intelligence.

It’s not evidence for what you seem to think that it is: a disembodied intelligence made it all happen.

The computer analogy fails because computers don’t occur naturally, and computers don’t arise through natural selection acting on many generations of small computers.

ddarko:

we believe tons of things that do not have empirical evidence. Logical axioms, the fact that other beings exist apart from me and they are not a figment of my imagination etc. Therefore, not all truths need empirical backing. We believe in logical axioms since its truth is a necessity.

“A disembodied intelligence exists” is not an axiom. It is a category error to try to place it there. It is a claim about the world outside of our heads, and we have developed a time-tested process of determining whether or not such claims are likely to be true: the use of evidence and reason.

If God does not exist, nothing really matters including whether you believe in the truth or lies.

Say that I’m walking down the street and a bus is coming down the road. The statement “A bus is coming down the road” is true. In that situation, whether or not a god exists, it makes a huge difference to me whether or not I believe the truth.

Sure, ultimately, in the big picture, it doesn’t matter whether I’m hit by a bus – which is I suppose where you’re going with this weird argument – but it matters tremendously to me, which is the whole point of bothering to figure out whether my beliefs are true or not.

And if you’re going to turn around and say something even more ridiculous, like, “Oh, well, it matters to you, but it doesn’t truly matter – ‘truly matter’ here defined as something random that I’m making up because I don’t understand what the word ‘matters’ actually means when it’s used by real people”…then there’s no point in talking further.

Even atheist have to implicitly assume that he exists in their daily lives.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go along?

Thirdly, Christians believe that Christ was resurrected and our church fathers did indeed see him after that. Thus God has given us proof of his existence.

And believers in Krishna think that Krishna appeared to Arjuna, and it was recorded in the Bhagavad Gita. So I guess Krishna has given us proof of his existence as well.

Oh, wait a minute. You mean that ancient stories written down generations after events supposedly took place are completely insufficient to demonstrate that violations of natural laws happened?

MindOverMatter2:

You don’t seem to have the capacity to understand metaphysical truths.

So is that a completely and total evasion of a simple question? I’ll quote it again for you: “How did you come to this metaphysical knowledge of god? If you have evidence of it, then we can talk about how good your evidence is, and we’re right back to square one. If you have no evidence, then you don’t have knowledge of it at all.”

Yeah, if I were in your position, I’d want to back down from addressing that question too.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Love and hate can’t be proven by science either, and yet they are real. Science is only ONE subbranch of empirical knowledge. Direct experience - which is where we get our knowledge of the abstract things like love or hate - is every bit as much empirical evidence.
AntiTheist;6826471:

Absolutely. I don’t need to do a scientific experiment to support the claim “I feel love right now.” For that claim, my personal observation of my emotional state is more than sufficient – because the claim is about my internal state.

Let’s discuss LOVE further. I located an article that interested me. Tell me what you think about it.

Session Z11: Approaches to Mentorship, Collaboration and Education

3:30 PM–5:06 PM, Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Room: Maryland C

Sponsoring Units: FEd AAPT
Chair: Yuhfen Lin

Abstract ID: BAPS.2010.APR.Z11.5

Abstract: Z11.00005 : For the Love of Science: Learning Orientation and Physical Science Success4:18 PM–4:30 PM
Preview Abstract
Authors:
Zahra Hazari
(Department of Engineering and Science Education, and Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University)
Geoff Potvin
(Department of Engineering and Science Education, and Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University)
Robert Tai
(Curry School of Education, University of Virginia)
John Almarode
(Curry School of Education, University of Virginia)
An individual’s motivational orientation serves as a drive to action and can influence their productivity. This study examines how the goal orientation of students towards the pursuit of their graduate degree in physics and chemistry influences their future success outcomes as practicing scientists. Two main orientations are focused on: performance (or ego/ability) orientation and learning (or task/mastery) orientation. The data was obtained as part of Project Crossover, which applied a mixed methodological approach to studying the transition from graduate student to scientist in the physical sciences. Using regression analysis on survey data from 2353 PhD holders in physics and chemistry, we found that individuals exhibiting a learning orientation were more productive than those exhibiting a performance orientation in terms of first-author publications and grant funding. Furthermore, given equal salary, learning-oriented physical scientists produced more first-author publications than average.
meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR10/Event/115993

My thought gives rise to this: Love = An individual’s motivational orientation that serves as a drive to action and can influence their productivity. This could be applicable to many things.

 

[inocente]

My thought gives rise to this: Love = An individual’s motivational orientation that serves as a drive to action and can influence their productivity. This could be applicable to many things.

Performance (or ego/ability) orientation implies an inclination toward self/theory, while learning (or task/mastery) implies an inclination to others/experience.

This in turn implies that atheists are more likely to fall in the first group and religious people in the second. Since the study shows that the second group has better survival characteristics, we are led by the nose to conclude that atheism will die out in due course.

 

[aperture]

That’s why.

Good point. Also, I believe in scientology because Tom Cruise clearly believes it. How can I disagree with such a powerful experience? Didn’t you see him jumping on those couches?

…perhaps that was flippant, but really, a claim of some unnamed person having some instantaneous epiphany is pretty weak evidence IMO.

 

[tonyrey]

This depends on what you mean by “science can’t prove love/hate”. Do you mean that science cannot prove that love is different than hate, i.e. that science cannot show that a person experiencing love does something different than a person experiencing hate? Because that is, of course, untrue.

What do you think science is based on?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter2: So is that a completely and total evasion of a simple question?

Believe what you will, I have said what I have said. Just as you doubt me, I doubt very much that “you” have the capacity to understand why the metaphysical proofs for Gods existence are valid. So why waste my time? You either get it or you don’t.You evidently have to many bias’s, prejudices, and false concepts in your head to fully appreciate the evidence for Gods existence.

 

[timotheos]

Good point. Also, I believe in scientology because Tom Cruise clearly believes it. How can I disagree with such a powerful experience? Didn’t you see him jumping on those couches?

…perhaps that was flippant, but really, a claim of some unnamed person having some instantaneous epiphany is pretty weak evidence IMO.

Why do you think apparitions are nothing more than an epiphany, or imaginatory hallucination, or some type of personal internal religious experience? Fatima is one example of an apparition that was clearly external in nature, witnessed by thousands, believers, nonbelievers and agnostic alike. Another occurred in Knock, Ireland in 1879, witnessed by 15 people who clearly not all religious fanatics, and were not anticipating some sort of religious event.

Many do describe the experience of closeness to God as a “feeling”, and I agree, it is practically impossible for a nonbeliever to relate. Even as a believer, I am mostly unmoved by someone expressing “feelings” of the reality of God. However my point is, not everyone who has experienced the reality of God is describing an internal “feeling”. A few of these people have seen something very external, very much incompatible with the workings of the natural world, and apparently very compelling.

Whether you have any curiosity about these events is your business. But to dismiss them as a form of couch-jumping is a bit premature. If nothing else, it makes for interesting reading!

Tim

 

[aperture]

What do you think science is based on?

This is a really broad question, so I may as well ask what your reason for asking it is (I assume it’s rhetorical, intended to prove a point?)

 

[aperture]

Why do you think apparitions are nothing more than an epiphany, or imaginatory hallucination, or some type of personal internal religious experience? Fatima is one example of an apparition that was clearly external in nature, witnessed by thousands, believers, nonbelievers and agnostic alike. Another occurred in Knock, Ireland in 1879, witnessed by 15 people who clearly not all religious fanatics, and were not anticipating some sort of religious event.

Many do describe the experience of closeness to God as a “feeling”, and I agree, it is practically impossible for a nonbeliever to relate. Even as a believer, I am mostly unmoved by someone expressing “feelings” of the reality of God. However my point is, not everyone who has experienced the reality of God is describing an internal “feeling”. A few of these people have seen something very external, very much incompatible with the workings of the natural world, and apparently very compelling.

Whether you have any curiosity about these events is your business. But to dismiss them as a form of couch-jumping is a bit premature. If nothing else, it makes for interesting reading!

Tim

Well, mass hysteria is pretty well-documented. Even on a “small-mass” scale, pardon the oxymoron. I remember reading an account of an experiment in which one participant was put in a room with 5-10 planted subjects. The group would be given simple questions and the 5-10 would all answer wrong, but in the same way. Most times, the last subject (the “real” one) would start out with the correct answer but eventually switch to agree with the group.

As the saying goes, “men lose their heads in unison and regain them one by one.”

Moreover, the miracle at Fatima - if it did happen as described, which is a big if IMO - seems very weak. The sun seemed to move around in an unfamiliar way. This strikes me as something that could very well be explained through some strange atmospheric event, or tricks of the eye (I can’t imagine that staring at the sun for an extended period produces great vision). I imagine this all sounds improbable to you, and I’ll concede that a strange atmospheric event happening just when a bunch of people congregate and hope for one is unlikely. But even when I assume Fatima’s natural phenomenon was real, it doesn’t say to me “Wow, God is real and cares about us!”

 

[Stylites]

Why believe in one God if no empirical evidence supports God’s existence?

What empirical evidence supports YOUR existence?

.

 

[timotheos]

But even when I assume Fatima’s natural phenomenon was real, it doesn’t say to me “Wow, God is real and cares about us!”

It was a sign to reveal that he exists. A sign was promised on that day, but the nature of the sign was not revealed beforehand. The caring bit was not really part of the apparition.

Same with Knock, Ireland. A man named P.C.D. Warren published an account in 1880 concerning the witnesses: “The persons who tell of those appearances and who solemnly declare the truth of what they assert, are numerous, respectable, and respected by their neighbours. Their answers are frank and civil, equally free from boldness and evasion, and their united testimonies constitute a mass of evidence which few impartial men will seek to discredit.”

What did they claim to see? An apparition of what evidently was Mary, St. Joseph, and St. John the Evangelist, outside of the Knock Parish Church. The Apparition was seen by fifteen people whose ages ranged from six years to seventy-five and included men, women and children. They watched the Apparition in pouring rain for two hours. Although they themselves were soaked not a single drop of rain fell on the gable, or the vision.

A closely corroborated Irish prank? If you are inclined not to believe, then no other explanation can be entertained. And if so, to get the truth out of one of them should have been a relatively easy matter; or to expose some inconsistency in their stories over time in separate interrogations. But none was, and witnesses went to their graves swearing the truth of their story, knowing the gravity of lying in their Catholic beliefs. And, contrary to popular opinion, authorities and scholars of prior centuries were not just caricatures of bumbling superstitious pedagogues straight out of a Monty Python movie, but knew how to interrogate people.

But don’t take my word for it. Read about it.

 

[AntiTheist]

Believe what you will, I have said what I have said. …] So why waste my time? You either get it or you don’t.

Well, I can only speak for myself here, but I’m certainly not trying to convince die-hard believers here, which I realize is close to impossible. My audience consists of those readers of this thread who are on the fence – and frankly, I don’t think you’ve offered the fence-sitters anything close to a compelling argument.

“I could tell you my evidence…but you wouldn’t believe me” is the rallying-cry of every snake-oil salesman in the world. In a discussion about why you believe, you are unwilling to state why you believe.

Again, given your observation of what has happened to everyone else who tried to make poor arguments, I think your strategy of avoiding the question is indeed your best option. I just want to make it clear to everyone what it is that you’re doing.

Stylites:

What empirical evidence supports YOUR existence?

For starters, my physical body.

Come on now, are you seriously going to suggest that there’s no evidence that anyone exists and that that justifies believing in absolutely any claim whatsoever? Seriously?

Timotheos:

However my point is, not everyone who has experienced the reality of God is describing an internal “feeling”. A few of these people have seen something very external, very much incompatible with the workings of the natural world, and apparently very compelling.

And unfortunately for you, a handful of ghost stories isn’t sufficient to demonstrate the claim that a god exists.

First of all, the fact that “something happened that we can’t explain” doesn’t mean that “therefore, it was a supernatural event.” People – even, believe it or not, groups of them – can be wrong about things that they see. For example, there are a number of stories of group UFO-abductions and group ghost sightings reported by people who in most cases honestly believe that these things happened to them. These stories are also consistent…do you think we should seriously go around and start believing that UFO abductions and ghosts are real?

Which is more probable: that a bunch of people were mistaken or that a major astronomical event happened that was only seen in one specific location on the planet and left absolutely no trace of its effects in terms of gravity or planetary movement (which it surely would have, were it real)?

It’s special pleading: the only reason that you consider these claims of supernatural events plausible while discounting other claims of supernatural events is that you want these particular claims to be true. And the evidence that it’s special pleading is that you don’t believe in every other single claim of supernatural events (unless, of course, you’re the most gullible person ever).

Of course, even if you took the ridiculous approach of taking all of these stories at face value – and, by the way, it’s already special pleading to take the magical stories of your religion seriously and not those of other religions…look up the Hindu living saints, for example, who have supposedly worked magic in front of crowds – there’s nothing that suggests that they are evidence of your particular supernatural explanation. Perhaps these “apparitions” are actually ghosts of the dead – working off their karma between Buddhist incarnations, maybe – who assume forms that onlookers would recognize; perhaps they are illusions created by wandering leprechauns who want to play tricks on mortals by making them think that their religion’s legends are true; maybe Hinduism is the one true religion and these “apparitions” are Rakshasas (evil spirits) assuming these forms to lead you away from the one, true faith…and so on and so on

At this point, now that every “why” for believing in a god has been utterly and completely shattered – and now that at least one of the posters here has openly admitted that there are no valid reasons for believing in a god – I’d be curious to know what Marc Anthony, the original poster, thinks of how the thread has been developing. Is there one particular argument that he actually finds compelling? Does he think, like I do, that they’ve all been pretty awful arguments? Why or why not?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Why believe in one God if no empirical evidence supports God’s existence?

To extend this thought-why then be Christian and not any other religion?

I’ll bite.

Hesitantly.

Because all of them (Gods) promise stuff?

 

[inocente]

Because all of them (Gods) promise stuff?

Take away the “no empirical evidence” bit, leaving just the question “Why believe in one God?”

Because it adds meaning to our lives. As well as having a ready-made support network (walk into any church to find brothers and sisters), we find meaning in scripture, Christian art and music, prayer and so forth. That spills into everyday life. At the same time we get as much meaning from secular works and activities as any atheist. It’s a win-win, even without the eternal life clause.

Now add back the “no empirical evidence” bit to the question. Atheist or whatever, we believe what we do from a mix of subjective evidence, objective evidence and theory. Possibly many atheists discount the subjective as being worthless on this question, as it would be in chemistry or geology, while allowing it when it comes to loving their families and so forth.

Many have tried to get objective evidence (either way) but it doesn’t seem possible even in principle. Philosophers have argued the toss for donkeys’ years, and don’t come out of it with very much except “I dunno”. You can only really accept God in your life by allowing the subjective, or “faith” as some of us like to call it.