I have a question for 'believers', of any flavor - it's a bit complex but,

[karlrschneider]

bear with me. I was raised basically in the Methodist church and I guess I must have had some belief in a deity (baptised as a kid in that church, ~50 years ago)...and actually went frequently to other churches in subsequent years including "Christian Science", and some exposure to the Baptists & a couple of others...but it finally dawned on me that really none of them represented a rational approach to life (and death.)

So my question is, I suppose, what evidence can anyone supply of any supernatural 'being/deity'? I would dearly love to embrace a totally optimistic belief system that would guarantee me an eternity of joy, but I don't see one.

Is there any rational reason for me to believe the promises of ANY religion? I really am open to suggestions. :eyes:

[drb]

1. You might want to do some research on...

..."Pascal's wager."

[karlrschneider]

7. I'm quite familiar with Pascal's Wager......having spent years on the FIDO

network :D

And I know the various debunkings of it. It makes for some interesting discussion. ;-)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Can you share them?

I had to learn this in H.S. and I'm curious what the other side is. Thanks :)

[Mechatanketra]

55. One easy debunking: competing theologies.

Pascal's Wager only has a chance of validity if one assumes that there is just one religious choice to make (God or no God). But add so much as one more choice (say, atheism v. Judaism v. Christianity), and you're wedged. If both X and Y church are offering salvation under conflicting terms, and you can't belong to both of them, than choosing to believe in one is as much a risk of damnation as not believing in either.

And as the numbers of competing theologies rise, the more wedged you get; you quickly reach a point where the best "bet" is to live your life as you believe is "good", and hope if there is a supreme being, it's either in agreement with you or fair about/forgiving of the dilemma you were hopelessly thrown into.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

71. Thanks!

I had forgotten that it was so specific. The form that I take is simply that Jesus said to be kind to everyone friends and especially enemies . If I do this and there is a God, that's good. If I do this and there is no God, that's fine because it's the right thing to do anyway. It's the moral thing (er, according to my morals, but then of course I do believe in God and Jesus as his Son). But I don't go to Church so even though I believe in God, and Jesus, I'm still going to hell according to most Christians. But that's fine.

I certainly don't believe that God would care what religion if any people are. The Bible says the person that actually does the deed is better than the one that just pays lip service. This is when I broke with the Catholic Church and became disillusioned. My cousin is a really great guy but he's not a church-going Catholic. I asked the instructor if my cousin could go to heaven and she said no. I believe that's crap. Why would God make us with such diverse opinions and options just so we could all be the same. It's ridiculous. I agree with you completely that the wager fails because of its demand that this way of thinking is the only way. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs be they belief in a supreme power, spirit, or agnostic or atheist.

[immoderate]

56. Try the Atheist's wager

It's here.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

Pascal's wager is a sucker bet.

As far as evidence goes, there is none. This stuff is all made up!.

--IMM

[SemiCharmedQuark]

70. Ah thanks,

I had forgotten how ...er...specific it was.

Thanks!

:hi:

[knowbody0]

2. try the Indian way

fits like a glove

[vivalarev]

3. No. none whatsoever.

Religion was created as a way to control the masses.

The idea of "faith" comes from the fact that there really is no evidence of any deities. Youre just supposed to "believe."

[NYC Liberal]

21. There's no way to scientifically prove there ISN'T, either.

And people who don't believe in a God, really have to BELIEVE there is no God.

[vivalarev]

30. Im not speaking of God

I never said I didnt believe in a God. The problem is that certain types of people can only understand so much, and I believe that religions try to put a human face on God. I also believe this is why Jesus was made into a deity.

I dont know anyone who doesnt believe that there is "something". Its about how you percieve that "something."

[immoderate]

58. There is "nothing"

Now you know someone who doesn't believe in "something."

glad to oblige.

--IMM

[immoderate]

57. Does that apply to...

...unicorns, leprechauns, and tooth fairies?

--IMM

[Cat Atomic]

76. That's just not true.

People who don't believe in god simply haven't seen any evidence to support the claim. There's no faith or belief involved. If you can get god to visit an atheist's house and perform a nice miracle, I'm sure you'd have a shiny new theist.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. Respectfully disagree-Religious institutions control the masses

Personal religion does not. People wrap themselves in the cloak of the church but it does not mean they represent true faith anymore than Bush wrapping himself in the flag means he represents the true U.S. People blindly follow leaders be they "religious" or "patriotic" whatever. This is why religion, if kept personal does not seem a problem to me.

[NYC Liberal]

35. Right.

"Religion" isn't bad, it's people who USE religion in order to control people. Just like Bush using "patriotism" to control people here.

[susanna]

42. Now that is an enlightened description...

...one of the best I've seen, SemiCharmedQuark. Can I borrow it if needed?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. Thanks

er...sure?

:hi:

[rockymountaindem]

4. Well, I would say simply this...

Mock me if you wish, but I think that the overwhelming complexity of the universe, the earth, and even a single-celled organism is evidence of God. I, unlike fundamentalists, do not think that the theory of evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive. In the story of creation, God began with simple things, like night and day, and progressed up the chain to what is so far the most complex manifestation of life: human beings. The evolution from simple plants to simple animals to more complex ones to humans is, I believe, the creation played out scientifically. The story of the creation was God's way of revealing an infinately complex process to simple people who couldn't comprehend the billions of years it has taken for God to refine life on this planet.

Once I saw a guy on TV, a fundamentalist, say that the theory of evolution is insulting to people, because it suggests that we are all nothing more than the decendents of slime and bacteria, not the noble inheritors of God's love that he believes us to be. I couldn't disagree more. To use his argument, I would say that the fact that God has sustained your lineage over billions of years and thousands of generations, from bacteria to human, is greater evidence of the existance of God and his love for us than if he had just created us with a whisper in one day.

That, I believe, is the most powerful argument for the existance of God.

[karlrschneider]

18. I wouldn't mock your belief, I wish I could get some of it.

It's clear to me that unbridled faith is absolutely comforting. But my scientific background gets in the way of that sort of absolutism. There's no way I can imagine an eternal and omnipotent entity...it doesn't comport with what's as yet known about the universe we live in.
The notion that "god" isn't understandable seems ridiculous...why wouldn't a true deity who wanted to be worshipped (that's a whole other discussion) make it perfectly clear...maybe rearrange a bunch of stars, spelling out for everyone to see, for example, some unequivocal message?

As Heinlein said, "faith is a stupid way to run a universe" sure seems logical to me...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. I live a fairly scientific life...

But I hit a dead end at some point. You can only ask why so many times. Universe created...big bang? Where did the big bang come from? Where did that come from? Where did that come from? etc. etc. etc.

[the_outsider]

44. and how does believing in god help it?

Who is god? how did he create everything? who created god? if he is so omnipotent, why isn't a way to perceive him? I do not see an end to the dead ends.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. I said, there is no end

Thus, nothing reason...facts...nothing can answer that. The point is, you cannot say "Science answers all" because it doesn't there are still gaps in the system. What answers it? It's up the individual.

[rockymountaindem]

37. I believe the answer to your question is

that God does not want to be worshipped. I don't think it's that big of a deal to God, really, whether we worship him or not. I don't think he would turn away our prayers and petitions, but I think it is of more comfort to him to see someone going through life totally ignorant of God's existance, but doing good for humanity, than someone who prays 23 hours a day but does nothing good for the world with the extra hour.

[phylny]

82. Rocky, your eloquent words

mirror my beliefs.

I look around at the world, at the beauty, at the beauty and diversity of people of all races, at the fact that we are here on this earth and to me, that's enough for me to believe in God.

It takes, literally, a leap of faith, but so do so many other things in life. I was in love with a man and married him when I was 23 years old. Did I know for certain that we'd still be in love, and I'd still be married to him for 23 years? No. Marrying him took a leap of faith. It felt right, it gave me happiness and peace, and I did it.

Same with God. If feels right, to me.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. listen to rockymountaindem. Go outside. look up. look down. pick up

a flower, a leaf, a ladybug. Don't hurt it, just look at it, marvel at it.

That's a prayer.

[rockymountaindem]

6. Thank you for that kind endorsement.

[Dr.Phool]

8. You have 2 choices.

One, you can give all of your money to, and spend the rest of your life being a slave to the Rev. Moon, the One True Messiah (Just ask him, he'll tell you). Or

Accept the fact that all religion is total bull. It gives peace and consolation to a lot of people, but explains or proves nothing. I forget the professors name, but he said "The invisible and the non-existent look remarkably similar".

[sangh0]

40. There are always more than two choices

.

[Sugarbleus]

9. I'm on hold until further notice.........

I was raised as a "christian". I ended up going through it via the fundie/pentecostal/evangelical method. Yikes! I did look into other sects and belief systems.

I'm disillusioned with all the various dogma at this point. Somehow, through reason and science, I still hold onto a belief in a Supreme Intelligence (God)...it's MY CHOICE though, not forced on me by organized religion. Organized religion had it's place for centuries--rightly or wrongly...but it's over, IMO.

I think it's a "good" thing to belong to a community of like minded people in a spiritual sense. A community that helps one another through birth, death, marriage, sickness and everything else. A positive community--not a dogmatic one. I haven't found one yet, hence, I'm on hold.

Whether their is a "hearafter" or we are just absorbed back into the cosmos is neither here nor there...it's about what we do with our lives right here, right now. I prefer the teachings of Jesus but I no longer believe his teachings are the ONLY way to spiritual enlightenment for all people. I'm allowing my soul to figure it out as I go along.

Peace~~SB

[karlrschneider]

25. I absoultely agree with the putative teachings of Jesus, and

most of the other spiritual icons, simply because most of them revolve around what's commonly called the 'golden rule' (which is most assuredly monopolized by Christians...even dogs and cats understand the gist of it), that said, I can't find any rationale to support the notion that there's an 'afterlife' - I'm pretty damn sure that once we're dead, it's the end of any sentience. Is there a 'soul'? I don't think so. But that's just my opinion. :eyes:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. Dogs and cats do not understand being kind for the sake of being kind

I believe that is an inaccurate statement to make. An animal's conscious thought exists on a separate level. A dog or cat will not be kind to those that have been cruel to it. It is not in that animal's interest so it will not be done. This is the choice we have to make as humans, be kind to those that are not kind to us. Were you exaggerating?

[Sugarbleus]

36. Heehee...I love the bit about the "dogs and cats" get the golden rule.

That's about the size of it.

Much Good luck~~SB :hi:

[belle]

10. Well, I'm coming around to the idea of a "universal consciousness"

Right now I'm reading a book by Stanislav Grof called "The Cosmic Game" which talks about this. The idea being that God, or "Deity," or whatever, is actually consciousness; and that consciousness is in everything, not just the human (or animal) mind. So it doesn't refute the "Big Bang" or evolution or anything of the sort, this theory, or theories (I'm really oversimplifying here); what it does is address the question of *why,* as opposed to simply *how.* Oh, yes, and a lot of it is rooted in Hindu/Buddhist philosophy, as suggested above. (You might also try looking at various flavors of Buddhism as well; many non-theistic people find it very satisfying as a life and death philosophy. Start with googling; maybe some people here have some book or website suggestions).

But anyway, you might like the Grof book if you're looking for "evidence," in that he's a psychologist, albeit one who's not considered "mainstream" at this point. But he does work with altered states of consciousness--he was part of the original LSD trials, then when that became illegal he developed what's called "holotropic breathwork," which is a chemical-free, albeit often less dramatic and slower, way of attaining similar states. Anyway, he talks a lot about experiences of his patients during these altered states, and compares them to mythic and mystical and religious texts from a number of traditions. I'm not doing it justice here; anyway, I found it really interesting.

[immoderate]

59. Consciousness...

...is an evolved survival mechanism. Immortals do not need to develop consciousness.

--IMM

[proud patriot]

11. Native American Faith is where I found a home n/t

[BeFree]

12. Is there a God?

If you look at it this way, there is....

Generation
Organization
Death

Some "thing" is generated from dirt, it's life is organized in a certain way and eventually dies, returning to dirt.

What is it that makes a flower, flower? Is it that force which
Generates, Organizes and Destroys?

[Eloriel]

13. This would be better posted in the Meeting RooM

IMO. A lot of us MR denizens are "believers" of various sorts.

But no "religion" for me, thank you very little -- just spiritual beliefs and practices. Religion is too often an obstacle to spirituality in my observation and experience (and no offense to those who DO belong to organized religions and find spiritual comfort therein).

[karlrschneider]

:D No problem Eloriel, I've long considered you a friend.

:-)

I guess I don't quite discern the distinction between religion and spirituality. Maybe it's just that I'm an old phart and it's become something I'm really wondering about. I'm not really -afraid- of dying, but I have to say the inevitable prospect pisses me off. :D...it's more or less a 'push' between what I can imagine optimistically and the alternate pessimestic possibilities. And the third alternative, which gives me a bit of comfort is that it doesn't really matter. Que sera sera?........;-)

[scarletwoman]

14. Study Buddhism, no "god" involved.

Or Taoism, or even shamanism for that matter. There's a great wide, wonderful world of spiritual traditions out there beyond the confines of monotheism and scriptural dogma.

There are multitudes of traditional indigenous spiritual teachings from all over the planet that offer deep insights and wisdom regarding the human condition and our relationship to the cosmos.

Break out of the false dichotomy of religion/atheism and look for the true wellsprings of spiritual understanding.

The question of whether or not "god" exists is both useless and irrelevant. YOU exist -- the question is, what makes up the YOU that you perceive? The only way to answer that question is through your own experience of diving deep within yourself, and the only use of ANY spiritual teaching is to provide tools to help you do that.

sw

[shraby]

15. I think religion began as a way to

explain death and expanded from there.

[scarletwoman]

32. Sorry, I totally disagree.

First of all, "religion" is something quite distinct from spirituality.

I see religion as a set of doctrines and dogma which imposes a set of beliefs from without. Spirituality arises from within and unfolds and evolves as a natural process.

The fact of physical mortality certainly plays a part in both religion and spirituality, but to say that these "began as way to explain death" is an oversimplification, and rather inaccurate, imho.

sw

[sam sarrha]

53. Buddhism is not involved with spirituallity, is is not involved with the

soul.

[Jose Diablo]

61. Its not?

I thought the 4 great noble truths identifies the desire for existence as the source of all suffering as this is what creates the soul which causes birth and then inevitable suffering and annihilation and then the soul dies. Yet like a echo, in ceasing to exist gives rise to another soul and on and on.

Thus to Buddhists the solution is the 4th noble truth, the middle or eightfold path, moderation. A pure form of Peleguism (if Buddha had been born in England). Salvation through our own efforts, without a diety.

Or the peace of non-existence by not forming an echo when our soul dies.

No, there is a soul in Buddhism, yet the individual soul is not immortal as in most of Christian-Islamic religions. I am not sure about Judaism when it comes to the existence of a soul outside the body.

At least thats what I understand Buddhists believe is true.

[scarletwoman]

69. What is a soul?

I made no mention of that term in either of my posts.

It is no doubt an error on my part to use the term "spirituality" without defining it. For the purposes of this particular discussion -- taking place, as it is, in the realm of relative truth -- I define sprirituality as the perception that "reality" encompasses a great deal more than that which is superficially apparent to the material senses and ego-mind.

However, I readily admit that I am at least as much an animist as I am a Buddhist, and an unregenerate (and unapologetic) metaphysician. ;-)

sw

[Jose Diablo]

60. Yes, but are we

spiritual because we practice the rituals of a religion, or do we practice religious rituals because we are spiritual, that is the question.

Are they really different things?

[scarletwoman]

72. I have always loved this quote from from Teilhard de Chardin:

"We are not humans having a spiritual experience. We are spirits, having a human experience."

sw

[Jose Diablo]

79. Yes, you see!!

The first time I had heard of The Allegory of Socrates Cave, I said to myself, this is it, the answer I had been seeking. I first heard it here, on DU, by the way.

We are like the dwellers chained within Socrates Cave, viewing 'reality' as reflections against the back wall of the cave, living in a shadowland.

I had come to doubt anything is really 'real'.

As an example, take the complex mathematical system of truth we call plane or Euclidean Geometry. At its' very base we find a set of 'unprovable truths'. We call them axions. And they do seem to be true, like the shortest line between 2 points is a straight line and there is only one straight line between these 2 points. How can this not be true, it seems to be beyond doubt, until we move beyond a flat plane onto a curved surface with the points now becoming the poles of a sphere. Well then we see there are an infinite number of lines between these 2 points and none of them can be straight. Our entire complex mathematical system breaks down if we change the underlaying system of 'unprovable truths'.

I would say, like the cave dwellers, this existence is like living in a 'shadowland' of attempting to explain truth, yet not having the tools or the language to express to each other the experience, because others that have not experienced what is known as a spiritual experience, to them we cannot express the feelings of being 'spiritual'.

If we were to take all that we 'know' from the rational scientific method and condense it down to its basics, we would discover at the base, all of our foundations for rational thought, are in fact faith in believing in things unseen or at least unproved.

Yes, it is shadowland where we exist.

[sweetheart]

16. Perhaps moving beyond traditional christianity

Religions that use the word "meditation" are a good start.
Learning meditation can give you direct experiences of profound
"beingness", joy, silence, ecstacy, and give you insight in to
1000's of years of saints and prophets who are directy inspired by
their private communion with eternity.

The rational reason is "you're asking". There must be something more
and your intution knows it, something that the mind can never embrace,
but like love and sex, is as natural as thought.

Some research in to religions will show you that they are all formed
by profound individuals, and when these individuals die, the religion
starts, with devotees trying to record the "teachings". As a
scientist, then it is more interesting the origins, as that is where
all the downstream "religion" comes from.

Then you might have a look round in your life, and decide if you are
just having thought experiments, or if you REALLY want to know.
As once you take the step towards direct awakening, there is never
the possibility of turning back. Self knowledge is a one way door.

Then perhaps, suspending disbelief, and having faith for a moment in
god and prayers, make sincere inner prayer to discover the truth,
even if it means accepting that everything you "know" today may be
wrong. Only if you can 100% pray for a "sign" from god, will there
ever be real direct communion, as there really is some very deep
spiritual stuff under the veneer, and it demands respect and
deference.

Then, given that you've nothing to fear from religions, i would
suggest going around and meeting different teachers of meditation
and awakening... as indeed, another piece of evidence from past
religion, is there is aways a "john the baptist".. not some nutty
guy dipping people in rivers, but a profoundly awake person who
can transmit direct awakening and give you a direct awakening, a
samadhi or satori if you will, as "advanced" religion is tossing
the books in the fire and coming to know god without intermediaries.

Well, that's a rough punt, hope it serves you.

namaste,
-sweetheart

[ulysses]

17. aren't you looking for the wrong thing?

Or rather, for two different things?

If you're looking for reasonable evidence of a deity, then no, of course you're not going to find it. As far as "a rational approach to life (and death)" goes, what questions about life and death are you asking? Science and reason will do just fine for the nuts and bolts, but if you're asking "why" kinds of questions, that's not the area of evidentiary reason, particularly. Stephen Gould wrote a good book a couple of years ago on the separate and proper realms of science and religion.

And yes, I'm quite happy in my agnosticism. :)

[meow mix]

19. certain properties of the universe are highly suspicious..

at least to me =)
but i have no religon sorry. hmm guess im a non-naturalist. woot!

[manic expression]

20. Please, don't anyone take this as preaching...

The answer is in yourself. Just look for it wherever you are.
"...what evidence can anyone supply of any supernatural 'being/deity'?"
There has never been a time where you have not been, and there will never be a time where you will not be. Everything is eternal. The first step to seeing the inner truth of everything is to look past the meaningless aspects of existence. In every entity, there is a piece of the omnipotent reality. To better explain this, look at a mountain. On a mountain, there are different animals, rocks, soil, trees and blades of grass. These individual things are themselves: unique in themselves and independent. Knowing this, the mountain is individual in itself as well. How can this be? Every piece of that mountain IS the mountain, while being independent between one another. The mountain is a mountain, but it is also everything which it consists of.
I hope I described it well enough. Thanks for reading.

[Jose Diablo]

62. I am gonna regret this but Kalam Cosmological Argument goes like this

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning (Cause and effect, look around, is there anything that began to exist didn't have a cause? Not from where I sit).

2) The universe began to exist (does any scientist have an explanation for the background microwave radiation that is uniform throughout the universe, that indicate a Big Bang beginning).

3) Therefore, seeing how the universe began to exist, there must have been a cause for its beginning and that cause pre-dates (came before) the universe and MUST be separate from the universe. (What else could it be that caused the universe and is separate from the universe. Wouldn't that be by definition, God?)

The fact the universe began is a big problem for science. It would be better if the universe was infinite in time back and forward. But then we have a problem with thermo dynamics and entropy. Either it should be extremely hot or burned out and cold by now if the universe had existed forever.

OK, I have my flame suit on.

[sam sarrha]

22. No there is not any reason outside of your own. I became a Buddhist

initially because of the really beautiful logic it uses to discover for yourself that nothing inherently exists, the self, the gods etc. but they do exist conventionally. In the Buddhist description of Samsara in the Wheel of life.. we as Humans have our own realm with its specific problems.. the gods realm has its failings: Pride, ours is desire, stuck between attraction and aversion... trying to get what we want while avoiding what we don't want.

as a childhood victim of extremest fundamentalist Christians i was somewhat amused to find that the gods didn't create the universe nor have dominion over it.. but i later learned to have 'compassion' for their suffering... as well for all sentient beings.

Buddhism is not a religion, it is a method of training the mind to become free of the ignorance that causes suffering. To become simply Awake. as best as i can explain it.

I found a path in life that is entirely up to me to decide to follow and recommends to constantly question and be ever vigilant to not accept anything as absolute or inherent. It is very honest about the nature of how hard it is, and that there are no babysitters, no one to save you but you.

[PragMantisT]

23. rmd has some good points

That we are the inheritors of a rich tradition of growth on planet earth. I, however, feel that the complexity of the universe rules out a god. As we see further into the universe, we see the rules change by region. Gravity is not constant nor consistent. I see these differences as arbitrary and capricious if created by a deity. If, on the other hand, they are the result of physical requirements, then they are flexible out of necessity.

I also feel somewhat cheated when I consider that this was all created by something for us. I feel more comfortable with the idea that life began on this earth by coincidence and refused to stop. Cataclysms and ice ages have failed to stop life on earth. If a deity had created all this, why would it send cataclysms from which life must be rescued. Then does it have to do the rescuing.

Finally, if you are interested in eternal peace, do not let your conscious mind be controlled by the ego. Upon brain death, the mind will not recognize the other side, thus it will hold onto the last cognitive moment. Anything after cognition does not exist to a thinking mind, thus the last cognitive moment lasts an eternity.

Sorry to go on at length, and it is just an opinion I formulated on my own. It's the only way I have been able to make sense of it all. BTW, I was raised a Catholic but am fascinated by religion and am now an atheist.

[Pepperbelly]

26. no doubt that we have a limited piece of whats really going on.

Look no further than quantim physics to see that none of our models represent what things are really doing or indeed, what that things actually are anyway.

[tlcandie]

27. A starting point, IMO...

is to find the "common threads" throughout all spirituality/religious teachings and therein you will find the truths of our origins.

Those common threads echo themselves in your very being and in every thing which you see, hear, touch, smell, etc.

You might try using exercising your heart muscle sometimes instead of just your brain muscle! *wink We are a multi-sensory being and therefore we do not experience this world nor find our way via only one sense or organ!

Happy adventuring!!!

:hug:

EDIT: Hey, if you want to experiement just for fun.. just keep telling the unknown out there and mean it in your heart that you want the TRUTH about who you are!!!

[jbm]

33. how about just a natural force?

A few weeks ago when things were looking really bad for Kerry, it occurred to me that the root of liberalism, most philosophy, and spiritualism is the assumption that the universe and all things in it truly do trend towards the good..always. When I reminded myself that I really believed that, I felt a peace because I didn't doubt Kerrys win any longer. I suppose that's the essence of faith. I am not so trusting in this newfound faith of mine that I will ignore the forces of evil who are trying to misdirect the natural drift of things, but I do feel a sense of peace that didn't exist before. Maybe that sort of qualifies as a religion.

[Hunter_1253]

34. The problem with your question is...

that you are trying to use logical debate and arguments to prove faith. Religion and believing in its principles (no matter which it is) is based in faith, or believing just because you do. You need no proof or reasoning. The double edge sword is that then when someone tries to use logic or reasoning as proof of their faith, they are crossing the line. Once that happens, alternate opinions, beliefs, and contradicting evidence usually turns the argument into an irrational mess, thus negating logic. People who try to prove faith are not only trying to convince you, they are trying to convince themselves.

[toddaa]

38. Chuang Tzu is your man

Taoism is not a religion, it's not a philosophy, and it's most certainly not a belief system. If you are looking for spirituality without all that supernatural nonsense, I suggest finding a good translation of Chuang Tzu's writings. Westerners like the Tao Te Ching, but Chuang Tzu is far more satisfying.

The Buddhists on this thread are worth listening to, but in my experience Zen Buddhism is nothing more than Taoism with a bunch of ritualistic sitting tacked on for those who like ritual.

[sr_pacifica]

39. There is no guarantee

Faith is living without answers.

[sangh0]

41. You ask two different questions, and I'm not sure

if you're looking for answers to both, or more likely, it's the result of a little conflation of the two, linked by your desire for some rationality. You ask "what evidence can anyone supply of any supernatural 'being/deity'?" and "Is there any rational reason for me to believe the promises of ANY religion?". In addition, one of your comments (ie. "it finally dawned on me that really none of them represented a rational approach to life (and death.)" is in line with the 2nd question, which I suspect is your real target.

The first question is a firm "No". As others have pointed out, God's existence is not subject to a scientific test because science deals with the natural world, and has no tools for ascertaining the workings or existence of the supernatural. But religion does not require a belief in God, as some here have pointed out. It only requires a belief in the supernatural, and there is a rational basis for suspecting that we do not have access to everything that exists.

As to the other question, religion most certainly can provide a rational approach to life, and there are rational reasons for you to believe in some of the promises you feel religion makes.

The Dalai Lama has said that "The purpose of life is to pursue happiness". Of course, DL's definition of happiness is not merely pleasure. He often speaks of compassion and equanimity as being important components of happiness. Christians speak of it as "going to heaven", the place of eternal bliss.

In another post, you say you agree with teachings of Jesus Christ, such as The Golden Rule, love your enemies, etc. Why do you think they work? What is it about nature that makes the following of these beliefs happier than we would have been if we didn't believe in them, and acted on that belief?

Though I'm not a Christian, I believe, like Jesus, that Love is the ultimate power in the universe. And the only rational explanation I have for that is one that involves a supernatural force of some sort.

Why can't The Truth be eternally held down? Why does it always eventually triumph? Is there something about the physical laws of the universe that prevents the truth from being extinguished? I can't see that.

You will never find a reason by using the tools science has to offer. Look at your life, and into your heart for evidence of the good religion might do for you. You have everything you need right there.

Look at the things you have taken from religion and believe in, even if they don't require a belief in God, such as the Golden Rule. Ask yourself, do I believe that following this will lead me to a happier life? If so, then why?

If you can find religious principles that you feel will help you pursue your happiness, then doesn't that answer the question "Can religion HELP provide a rational approach to life?". That's not the exact question you asked, but it's a start.

[Merlin]

47. Excellent response, Sangh0.

Some terrific stuff in there.

[Selwynn]

43. experience=my evidence, personal experience of a mystery greater than me..

in which I participate and which participates in me. For me to deny that would be to deny the reality which I experience. I'm not asking you to share my experience or shrae the language I use to express the experience. I don't believe based on blind faith, or dogma. I am not a creedal believer. I only experience what I experience and search for language to articulate the experience. Insofar as certain religious metaphors help me do that, I'll use them.

Unfortunately, I can't prove to you your own experiences, or tell you what they are, nor tell you how you should think about them, explain them, or describe them. That's your deal. Good luck in your questioning and blessings to you.

Sel

[GoneOffShore]

48. Why do you need

the crutch or opiate of any religion?
You seem like a spiritually developed person, so why do you find it necessary to lean on any supernatural 'being/deity'?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. It's a different sphere than rationality

You can't "prove" emotions, say, for example, why you fall in love with one person and not another who is very similar. Sure, scientists can explain why falling in love feels the way it does, and there are theories that say that your loved one reminds you of your parents, but all in all, it's a mystery why two total strangers will become so attracted to each other that they'll disrupt their lives to be together. It's simply not logical, certainly not to a Vulcan. :-)

Having a transcendent experience is like falling in love in that it makes no sense to someone who has never experienced it. It's hard to describe in words, kind of a gentle euphoria with a sharpening of the senses, a sense of "flow" that I have experienced only in nature or during religious ceremonies, and then only occasionally, perhaps five times in my entire life.

Some people are more attuned to spiritual matters than others. I've known people who were brought up atheists who were drawn to religious and spiritual concerns from childhood and eventually found a home in one religion or another.

I don't swallow any religion whole, because I believe that God, or whatever you want to call the force behind the Universe, is too big for us to comprehend. We're all the blind men with the elephant. We each have to find the path that suits us. I've found my niche in a theologically and socially liberal version of the Episcopal Church. Just this past week, I saw a collection of mystical and allegorical artwork by an artist documenting her conversion to Judaism. The day before that, I talked with a woman who had converted to Catholicism as an adult, after being brought up a Baptist. I've known Episcopalians who became Eastern Orthodox or Buddhist.

I don't know anyone who sat down and worked out syllogisms to decide upon their religion. It's simply that we felt something within a given tradition calling out to us.

[Jose Diablo]

67. Isn't this the truth about emotions

I have come to believe that emotions in many respects are superior to rational thought.

Think about it. When in love with someone and asked why, we might say, "well, she is beautiful" or "has a good sense of humor" or "has a twinkle in her eye" and on and on. We seek a rational and logical reason for why we love. Oh, and the famous one, "because he is cute". I mean how could anybody argue with the view that someone is cute. Its not possible.

Yet the truth is, love doesn't come from the rational mind, it just seems to be there. Should we say love is irrational.

If we think about what we would be without love, well we wouldn't have families, tribes, towns, cities or countries.

The emotion we call love is what binds humans together. It is a high survival trait that has allowed humans to prosper and survive. It is the glue that holds the human community together.

Thus, based on this, rather than saying love is irrational, I would say it is super rational.

Emotions get a bad rap from our rational selves. But then again, look who it is that is telling us emotions are not to be admired.

[Cleita]

50. Then you would like my fairy religion.

It's optimistic, non-judgemental, and you can really believe anything you like. The fairies don't mind. It's just as rooted in reality as any other religion so I find it works for me.

[Merlin]

51. Rule #1: Religion is not the same as God.

I apologize in advance for the length of this. But you did ask. Sorry, I don't have time right now to make it shorter.

The existence of a higher power--meaning a more intelligent entity than human beings--is, I suggest, a rational certainty.

There is intelligence built into every aspect of creation. The planets revolve in magnificent, mathematical harmony. The earth's natural cycles are wonders no software developer could ever hope to emulate. There is more intelligence in a single leaf than in all the creations of humans put together. DNA is miraculously encoded in inexplicably brilliant complexity. These things do not come about by accident. They are the clear result of an intelligence well beyond our comprehension.

Since it's way beyond human understanding--but humans nonetheless seek explanations--mankind has developed "religion" as a means of (1) explaining existence, (2) enforcing moral codes, and (3) perpetuating the control of a priestly class over much of humanity. Most world religions are literal relics, having changed almost not at all in literally thousands of years.

In short, religions tell us to believe the ideas and tales and myths and tribal folklore concocted by uneducated human being living in primitive times. With all due respect, it is no way for people to ground their understanding of a Supreme Being.

Religions have done much good, and some great bad. On balance, they have probably helped mankind progress. But they remain mired in anachronistic thinking. What is needed is a new way of conceiving of God.

My sense of this phenomenal force we call God is that it is wholly rational, created the universe, vested it with an instruction set (like Microsoft creates software), and let the system run unattended. I don't see this God as interventionist or even necessarily aware of us as individuals. To me reason dictates these observations.

There is one more, very important aspect of things, though which I must mention. My beliefs are similar to the Deistic beliefs of our founding fathers. But Deism died because, imo, it failed to take into account the undeniable existence of spirituality among humans. I sense true spirituality as being in communion with God's "Natural Law," meaning the rational laws of existence we all follow intuitively to make our lives better. The Natural Law includes such rational truths as healthy living makes us happier; telling the truth makes us more at peace internally, treating others in loving ways builds greater harmony into our lives, and on and on. In other words, it appears to be true that we humans CAN INDEED make ourselves a better world by conforming to the Natural Law, a law of rational positivism that we are all capable of perceiving on our own. When we are in touch with it, we are also on the same wavelength as others who are in touch with it. This creates a certain sense of spirituality--or silent communion--among those who are of this mindset.

Faith in religion is supposed to be a belief in the unknowable and unprovable mythology about Jesus being God and performing miracles and dying to save mankind (From what? God's own wrath? But I thought HE is God??!) and so forth. But I believe true Faith is believing in the ability to create a better world through living in accordance with the natural law, and through using our powers of reason and logic. I believe this is the great gift--in addition to our own existence--which the Creator of the universe has given us. There is a positive force in the world which we can perceive and team up with and harmonize with in pursuit of the goal of leaving the world a better place than we found it.

Thus ends todays lesson. ;-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Very thoughtful response!

:-)

[AntiFascist]

54. The Big Bang theory for which there is ample astrophysical evidence....

The universe originated from a singular particle. During the first few "seconds" following the Big Bang, the universe is dark, and time and the laws of physics do not follow rules that can currently be explained. Then, "there was light."

Possible related question: what is the Black Stone of Islamic mysticism all about?

[The Straight Story]

63. No proof in god, and no proof kerry will be better than bush

Sometimes you just have to take things on faith based on your experiences. What god is, to me, is what people have been trying to define through their beliefs. Their experiences are recorded in many a book (not just the well known books, sometimes small accounts from people) and those experiences have led them to a conclusion of some sort.

[LWolf]

64. Maybe not.

I wouldn't believe the promises of any religion.

On the other hand, I might believe in spiritual principles; not the same thing at all.

My suggestion for a starting point: a comparative study of religion.

When you start looking at each faith from the outside, and comparing/contrasting, some things become quickly evident. Much of religion can be classified as human-created systems for power and control. Underneath those systems, though, you can find some universal principles; "truths," if you will, common to all or most faiths. That's the place to focus on. Discount the differences, and condense it all down into one or two universal commonalities, and you have found evidence worth considering.

[Lexingtonian]

65. boy, this is good fun

There are two kinds of evidence for theistic religion. One you've mentioned yourself- and implicitly rejected- is the witness of certain people to certain kinds of experiences/events, which they tell us means the existence of such a Being. The flaw to that is that the relevance to the rest of us of each Revelation is hypothesis, is unproven/unprovable.

The second is the Rational Proofs, which all generally boil down to the four arguments- Design, First Cause, etc- of St. Thomas Aquinas plus the Ontological Proof (or Argument) of St. Anselm which 'Merlin' has very eloquently laid out above.

Each of them can be shown to logically 'hang in the air', though. The four Aquinian ones can be shown to be derivatives of the Ontological Argument, though. And the Ontological Argument has the fatal flaw of assuming a reference framing- the fact that the average human mind finds wonder and sees pattern in the Universe, and finds reducibility of its behavior to Laws of Physics possible, is not necessarily due to the properties of the Universe. It may be that our minds, constructed to deal with terrestrial living, impute such properties- and a theistic God is a mirage our minds impute as well.

But theism is a demand, and one is not always sure of how seriously, of a subset of religions.

Most of the remaining religions, and to various extents many or most of the (nominally) theistic ones, have parts that go in one of two nontheistic directions (and some, in both). One kind proposes that God, but not in theistic form, enters into human life via human life- that human lives can/do become channels to a 'spiritual force' that, in the best of the adherents, takes them over, defines their living, and radiates outward from them in the form of love, service, wisdom, etc. The second kind proposes God to be all that has power over human life- Death, Fortune/Fate, Grace, Destiny- but lies outside of human life and is formless but can be brought to cooperate with individual human beings.

Truth is, theism works largely to 'explain' Nature- the physical world- to us. Science has pretty much destroyed that variety of God- His full destruction defines Modernity- and our political fights worldwide are between the people who have given up this notion of God and those who refuse to.

The two non-theistic varieties of religion mentioned are, in theologically technical language, the mystical kind ('liberal' varieties of most religions to some degree and religious humanism, in fairly pure form e.g. Sufism, Quakerism, Buddhism) and the occultic kind (generally taking the form of 'fundamentalism' or novel 'cults' and taking over theistic religions of all kinds worldwide).

The question you're asking at the end of your post is, as I understand it, really about Immortality and its forms. What is promised by religious groups during our lives is limited by the fact that theistic religion, as it exists, is largely a coping mechanism and, for those few desiring to go beyond that, preparatory for 'graduation' to mystical or occultic selfdevelopment. Immortality...well, it's really a question about the nature of Death and the value and form of Life, inverted. I suspect that the deepest teaching of religion about Death and Immortality is that they don't matter to the person who has truly fulfilled his/her Life and sees it in perspective, as part in the chain of human history and mankind's fulfillment of its destiny. Religion is imho the human endeavor that keeps this idea from being forgotten, or at least retaining the ability to recover it, and to tell/remember what the idea of Life to live -what makes it worthwhile, and necessary- is to the group that adheres to it.

[Matilda]

66. Faith, by definition, is a belief or trust in something

that cannot be proven. If we could prove the existence of God
beyond a doubt, there would be no need for faith.

There have been some excellent posts in this thread, and my own
feelings go along with those who believe that there is some universal
force at the heart of creation, but don't really know what (I think
that's more appropriate than "who")it is. The way the seasons come
and go, the way a child is born, the way that all matter is recycled,
is a wonder that I think goes beyond the possibility of coincidence.
I believe that there is a great intelligence at work somehow, but
for institutions to try to nail it down and give it rules is really
rather absurd when you think about it.

I am Catholic, and I think the purported teachings of Jesus are an
excellent guide for living, wherever they originally came from, but
I don't always see the connection between what Jesus taught and what
the Christian churches are saying and doing, and I have no problem
with following my own heart and mind on spiritual matters. I also
believe in reincarnation - but of course, that is a belief only, and
not something I could possibly prove. But I think the soul's journey
is a long one, far too long to be encapsulated into one short life.

I do believe without any doubt that there is anothr dimension -
there are people who can hear things, see things, feel things that
cannot be explained by any criteria we can know or label - and for
want of another term, I would call it a spiritual dimension. I
don't know how it came about or entirely what its purpose is, but I
do believe it's there, beyond our ability to understand or label,
and I have had some small personal experience of it myself (which
may, of course, mean that I'm just a crazy person). But I think
perhaps this other dimension, which sometimes touches upon our
waking consciousness, is a hint of that all-powerful life force that
has shaped us and our world.

[Selwynn]

75. Nothing can be absolutely proven - certainty is a myth

there is reasonable certainty, high probablity and conjectural soundness. There are also arguments to be make when to not believe at thing is more difficult and challenging than to believe a thing. But many of these judgements are actually based on certain assumptions and interpretation and often bias.

Certainy it seems most reasonable to believe that I have two hands. So reasonable in fact that the case could be made that it is appropriate for me to believe that I have them and perfectly acceptable in normal conversation to simply say "I know I have two hands." In truth however, I really don't know that because there are certain possibilities that I can't rule not, namely that my perceptions are somehow decived.

Nothing is absolutely certain to the finite mind. Part of the problem we get into is a fixation on a need for certainty. And that fixation fuels two different wrong headed approaches -- it fules the religious fundamenalist in his/her obsession with dogamatic absolutes, and it fules the non religious rationalist with his/her obsession with absolute dogmatic negation of things he/she cannot see evidence for or experiences he/she does not share.

[Matilda]

77. Getting into Existentialism here - good post.

It's all fascinating - life, the universe and everything - so it
seems ridiculous for any religion or school of belief to try to
attach their lists of rules and absolutes to the intangible. I
guess it's part of our insecurity as humans.

[BiggJawn]

68. Read Carl Sagan, Karl.

NOBODY can provide evidence of a deity. and sorry, but I don't believe that simply because "Lo, I am wonderously made" that "proves" anything.

There's no proof of any deity. I read a book that claimed a deity spoke though burning bushes, lead a culture across the desert with a pillar of fire as a guide, dropped food on them and told a crowd who just watched a carpenter get dunked in the river "That's mah boy! chip offa the Ol' Block!",
but in the last 2000 or so years, He's been a little quiet.

Read "The Demon-Haunted World".

[DivinBreuvage]

74. You believe he's been quiet because you haven't been listening

Of course I'd be laughed out of here if I uttered my own theory, so I'll say nothing about it for the present. (No, it doesn't involve God endorsing George Bush)

[BiggJawn]

80. Oh, please....

Spare me the "I've been calling, but your phone's busy.-God" Billboard sentiments.

All the people who pray daily for Peace, and do we have it? no, we dont.

"Nothing fails like prayer"
There, I can write billboards, too.

[DivinBreuvage]

81. I think my "God" billboards would surprise you

If you don't believe in any kind of numen, that's fine with me; I'm not trying to convince you. But as someone who does believe, I think your statement that "he's been pretty quiet for 2000 years" is wrong.

I don't think he (or more accurately "it") has been quiet at all, though it doesn't speak in parlor tricks like making the sun stand still or letting decapitated people pick up their heads and go walking around.

And when I say you're not listening, I don't mean that you're tuning out a Hallmark Channel message of peace and well-being addressed to you personally. I am not sure that it takes that kind of individual interest in people.

I don't think it has any more interest in world peace than human beings do. I think it is perfectly willing to throw millions of humans into the meat grinder if it suits its purpose to do so. I think it spoke through Adolf Hitler, just as it spoke through Attila or Joan of Arc or George Washington or John Brown. I think it is speaking through George Bush now, though certainly not in the way that fundamentalist Christian conservatives seem to think. I'm not sure it is speaking to us, though, and I'm not sure it cares if we hear. I think perhaps that whatever plan it has is abstract, inhuman, and other, and that to it individual humanity is only a medium for that plan, as paint is a medium to an artist: the artist uses the paint to create his tableau, but he does not do so for the sake of the paint.

If I had to make one of those highway billboards out of it, it would probably just be blank.

[nemo137]

73. there isn't any "proof"

I can't set up two columns and show you by visual logic that God exists. But I believe, from personal experience, that he does. It's a leap of faith one just has to take.

[UdoKier]

78. An eternity of anything, even joy, would be torture.

I understand where you're coming from, but personally, I'd rather be born again and continue to grow as a new being, rather than sit in some static heaven.

The greatest thing about life as a human being is to love, and grow and learn, and that includes all the hard knocks. I'm not rich, good-looking, ore especially smart, but I love my life, even with all the colossally stupid mistakes I've made and losses I've suffered.

It truly seems a waste that all that growth, effort and suffering simply ends in a void.

The logical part of me says that that is what happens, but I hope that the irrational part eventually wins out and that I will come to believe in some sort of afterlife (but not heaven, no thanks). Then I can at least meet my end at peace, regardless of what REALLY happens. I certainly hope to be surrounded by my kids when I go.

Death sucks but can you imagine how quickly the world would fill up with people if we DIDN'T die?!

[Joe Chi Minh]

83. You know,

when Einstein was asked what criterion he used when selecting his hypotheses, karlschneider, his reply was that it was *aesthetic*. And today reference to the "elegance" of a theorem is I believe a commonplace today among mathematicians, though it was not a field Einstein himself excelled at.

Now, since Einstein worked on that basis in seeking to understand the physical universe, why would anyone expect "evidence", presumably compelling physical "evidence", when seeking to approach an understanding of the existence or not of a God, held by most of the mainstream religions to be ultimately transcendental?

Their are a few arbitrary, irreducible axioms of the Christian faith that we Catholics call mysteries, our acceptance of them being a gratuitous gift of God alone, and which act for the sincere Christian as a springboard for his understanding. However, it remains the case that the deepest truths are steeped in paradox and mystery, the more so the deeper the truths. Religious faith and knowledge actually form a mysterious continuum.

A poster asking a similar question to yours in a DU thread, yesterday, stated, I believe, that personally she set more store on the "scientific method" than anything else, although she was open-minded. I hope she feels this post is addressed to her as well.

Well, the "scientific" method simply precludes "thinking outside the box", which is absolutely required in theoretical physics, never mind religion. Newton stated that, in fact, his discoveries were essentially the fruit of inductive, a priori reasoning - reasoning from first principles; not deductive reasoning. You can spend a life-time looking at the trees, but to see the wood also requires a different modus operandi.

It is in the interests of government and big business to tout the sovereign supremacy of "science", as it lends itself to "blinding with science", with blinding people from an overview of the "wood", by trying to persuade them to concentrate on studying the "trees". Fortunately, people generally have never been as gullible concerning the claims of science as its professionals and their commercial and governmental paymasters would like. It's an intuitive knowledge / understanding that people build up from their experience of life, from the myriad circumstantial evidence all around. Until they arrive at pretty much, a "first principles" awareness, that "white coats" do not necessarily bespeak great intelligence, still less wisdom.

However, too many people are still as innocent as doves in terms of the world and the political realities that govern our lives; just as their leaders tend to be as wise as serpents. Both, in spite of Christ's teaching that we should all endeavour to possess both dove-like innocence and serpentine worldly wisdom. This election may act as something of a catalyst in that regard.

It's great fun, actually, when you come across or remember an immense insight, encapsulated in a simple act of thinking in terms of first principles. Really the mark, in my opinion of a very able mind.

Some of my favourites are these: When old Blackjack Kennedy was asked why, when everyone else was buying shares until just before the stock-market crash, he replied (not verbatim), "When my shoeshine boy tells me what shares I should buy, I realised the market had gone made, it was haywire". A simple access of quite elementary common-sense when you think about it, yet it probably enabled him to make billions as a result of it.

Similarly, George Soros, made an absolute killing as a result of acting upon his virtual certainty that this forex trade of his was a win-win trade. It was his intellectual integrity and courage that enabled him to act upon a simple fact that must have been perceptible to many other financiers of similar status.

Our press like to dwell on the fact that as a young man, Sean Connery had been a milkman, but I believe he is more than a little intelligent. I say this because he recognises the primacy of first principles and is inevitably tickled by it. I'm thinking of his statement once that he was given some very good advice, (maybe by his agent), i.e : "The difference between a rich man and a very rich man is a good lawyer".

[truthpusher]

84. anything that can be conceptualized is possible...including God..